Stop Making Excuses

[wickwoman]

A discussion a week or more ago with Purex got me thinking along these lines. He said something to the effect that what we think of God is really an extension of our own psyche. This is a very general excerpt from the discussion which I hope he doesn’t mind I repeat but it bears further discussion.

I will make a general assumption here that none of us has ever met God personally. Based on that assumption I will also agree with Purex’s statement above. What we think about God is truly a figment of our imagination. This isn’t to say that God doesn’t exist, however, we don’t REALLY KNOW what or who he/she is.

Now, you can say the Bible describes God very well, however, you will first have to make an assumption that the Bible is true. This assumption will be based on your desire for it to be true or not; the evidence you have or haven’t seen to its truthfulness; your own personal “gullability” or lack thereof (in other words, are you a person who requires strict proof, a little bit of proof, or none at all in order to accept something); your personal experiences which would prepare you to accept that the Bible is true; and, I believe the most important reason of all, your faith in your own inner feelings and beliefs i.e., your ability to trust your own judgment. There are other factors which also affect a person’s decision to accept the Bible or not but they are too many to cover completely here.

I read a wonderful quote today by JosephofMessiah in another thread:

“Not to mention ignorant Christians who actually think that Christianity has some sort of consensus viewpoint of God and doesn't realize that there are so many branches of Christianity you can basically believe anything you want to believe and still be called a Christian. Your ‘personal branch’ of Christianity is no more valid nor backed by scripture than other branches, and I can assure you that the various understandings of scriptures are the reasons for these various branches of theology.”

I know most Christians would beg to differ with JofM here, however, I’d have to agree wholeheartedly with this one statement of his. Let’s be frank. If you are a Christian, you decided what kind of Christian you wanted to be. Whether you decided on your particular “brand” due to the mere convenience of it because it was a religion handed down to you by your parents or whether you stumbled across your brand because you were searching for something that fit you just right, you chose it.

“Every holy person seems to have a different doctrine and practice, but there's really only one work.”

-Rumi (Translated by Coleman Barks)

Whenever a fundamentalist Christian expresses a bigoted or prejudicial attitude towards another human being – i.e. homosexuals, for instance, they sometimes try to excuse their bad behavior by blaming it on their religion. However, there are mainstream Christian religions which do not condemn homosexual behavior and, if that fundamentalist Christian did not feel personally offended or threatened by homosexuality, they would most likely have chosen one of those “non-bigoted” religions.

There are Christian religions which do not send “everyone else” to Hell because they believe in a benevolent all loving, all powerful God who loves everyone, regardless of their country of origin, color of their skin, sexual orientation or any of the other myriad of reasons the “fundamentalist” God hates everyone else. Hard to imagine, isn’t it?

You have a choice. You want the rest of the world to think you are bound up by some universal truth but the real truth is, YOU HAVE A CHOICE. You made that choice based on what you already believed. You didn’t go to God with a blank and open mind. You have some preconceived ideas about who you thought God was and you picked a religion that fitted those ideas the best. Even if you didn’t get the chance to make an active choice, you make that choice every time you go to church on Sunday.

A fundamentalist Christian has to fight every day against many factors in order to continue a faulty system of beliefs:

1. The beliefs and opinions of others
2. Their own personal, inner feelings which have often been suppressed and ignored
3. Logic and reasoning
4. The natural world in which we live
5. REALITY

My advice? Try going with the flow for a while. There’s no danger of getting lost. All paths lead to
LOVE.

“For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness.
Then one swoop, one swing of the arm, that work is over.
Free of who I was, free of presence, free of dangerous fear, hope, free of mountainous wanting.
The here-and-now mountain is a tiny piece of a piece of straw blown off into emptiness.”

-Rumi (Translated by Coleman Barks)

[Freak]

Shorten your posts, Wickedwoman.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Freak
Shorten your posts, Wickedwoman.

Well, she's gotta have room to slide all those lies in...

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Lotta hot air in that head, she just need to let a little bit out to relieve the pressure!



Her forehead does look a little swollen, doesn't it?

[Neophyte]

Originally posted by wickwoman
There are Christian religions which do not send “everyone else” to Hell ...

Last time I checked, religions don't send people to Hell. They haven't the power. People go there on their own steam.

... because they believe in a benevolent all loving, all powerful God who loves everyone, regardless of their country of origin, color of their skin, sexual orientation or any of the other myriad of reasons the “fundamentalist” God hates everyone else. Hard to imagine, isn’t it?

Yes. Politically correct, feel-good-now, no one is responsible for their actions philosophy is not found in the bible.

You have a choice. You want the rest of the world to think you are bound up by some universal truth but the real truth is, YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

Christians would agree. Faith is founded on choice. I *chose* to believe in Christ. I *chose* to follow God's laws. If we didn't have the power to choose, it would be a hollow relationship indeed.

You made that choice based on what you already believed. You didn’t go to God with a blank and open mind. You have some preconceived ideas about who you thought God was and you picked a religion that fitted those ideas the best.

Actually, belief is a substantial and difficult step for most Christians. It takes courage, self-effacement, and willingness to submit to God. It doesn't represent an 'easy route' or 'path of least resistance'. It is not a 'convenience' in any way. Which is more than I can say for the politically correct, feel good, all paths lead to love philosophy which you seem to follow.

[rfburnhertz]

Your post is way too long to respond to all of it. So I'll just respond in general. Along with a few questions probrably.

I take the overall point of your post to be that we cannot know truth. That is at least what I took from it.

>> Now, you can say the Bible describes God very well, however, you will first have to make an assumption that the Bible is true. This assumption will be based on your desire for it to be true or not; the evidence you have or haven’t seen to its truthfulness; your own personal “gullability” or lack thereof (in other words, are you a person who requires strict proof, a little bit of proof, or none at all in order to accept something); your personal experiences which would prepare you to accept that the Bible is true; and, I believe the most important reason of all, your faith in your own inner feelings and beliefs i.e., your ability to trust your own judgment. There are other factors which also affect a person’s decision to accept the Bible or not but they are too many to cover completely here. <<

You are stating the above as known fact.
Is it fact or is it your assumption?

Could there be personal experiances which would prepare you to reject the bible? Your faith in things ouside of God? Your faith in your own inner feeling. Your faith in your judgement?

Could there be other factors as well which lead you to reject the bible?

Why must I 'assume' the bible is true? Why is it I cannot actually KNOW it is true?

>>I read a wonderful quote today by JosephofMessiah in another thread<<

I see nothing wonderful about the statement, I do see however that he doesn't know or understand what it is he is saying.

As an example:
>>Not to mention ignorant Christians who actually think that Christianity has some sort of consensus viewpoint of God and doesn't realize that there are so many branches of Christianity you can basically believe anything you want to believe and still be called a Christian. <<

This is not true.

First, understand that 99% of the "branches" agree on 99% of the issues, that is upon the essentials.

Those outside of the 99% are in most cases considered by everyone other than themselves to be outside of Christianity. Because they reject essentials, such as who Jesus Chrsit is, did Jesus rise from the dead, etc....

>>Whether you decided on your particular “brand” due to the mere convenience of it because it was a religion handed down to you by your parents or whether you stumbled across your brand because you were searching for something that fit you just right, you chose it. <<

I choose no brand.
I rejected the "brand" my parents handed down to me. This caused much of my family to reject me, it would have been much easier to have stayed in what my family handed down to me.

I choose the "brand" I choose because the truth of it had been demonstrated to me. Not the hypothothis of, not the theory of, the truth of.

>>“Every holy person seems to have a different doctrine and practice, but there's really only one work.”

-Rumi (Translated by Coleman Barks)<<

Did this person know holy people?
I know I don't know any holy people, I know only sinners. Either sinners who reject God or sinners who accept the gift of God.

>> There are Christian religions which do not send “everyone else” to Hell because they believe in a benevolent all loving, all powerful God who loves everyone, regardless of their country of origin, color of their skin, sexual orientation or any of the other myriad of reasons the “fundamentalist” God hates everyone else.<<

Are you then under the assumption that Christianity requires a person to be of a specific race, with a heavenly green card?

God does not hate "everyone" else.

Seeing as you are so very familiar with the written Word of God and Christianity I assume you will know what I mean when I say,
"For God so loved the world".

>>YOU HAVE A CHOICE.<<

You are right, we agree.

I have a choice. The very same choice you have.
We all have the choice to reject God or to accept God.

We made different choices.

You post is funny in that you hide your reason for posting.

Your reason for posting this post is to evangelize. Which is fine, but you could have been honest about it.

You posted to tell us 'what it is and how it shall be'.

Have a heck of an eternity.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Tye Porter

That's mean, I take it back, I am sorry.
If there is any swelling, it is from pounding her head against a wall, because such thoughts keep coming out of it, and they make no sense.
She's baffled.




Now, now...
remember we were all 'baffled' (read:lost) at one time.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Please read a Bible, someday.
I promise, you will learn something.




You assume wrong. I've read the Bible many times but thanks for the suggestion.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by Neophyte
Last time I checked, religions don't send people to Hell. They haven't the power. People go there on their own steam.

Actually you don't really know where "they" go you just hope they will go to Hell.


Originally posted by Neophyte
Yes. Politically correct, feel-good-now, no one is responsible for their actions philosophy is not found in the bible.

Actually, it is. Read 1 Corinthians 13 and read the story of the prodigal son or just about anything Jesus said about love.

Originally posted by Neophyte
Christians would agree. Faith is founded on choice. I *chose* to believe in Christ. I *chose* to follow God's laws. If we didn't have the power to choose, it would be a hollow relationship indeed.

No you choose to be a Methodist, Baptist, Pentacostal or whatever. You would like to believe that the choice is founded on some fact, however, you have no more idea what the real truth is than anyone. As to God's law, you would have to ask God and he/she doesn't talk out loud much. I would suggest you consult that small, still inner voice and see if you get any insight.

Originally posted by Neophyte
Actually, belief is a substantial and difficult step for most Christians. It takes courage, self-effacement, and willingness to submit to God. It doesn't represent an 'easy route' or 'path of least resistance'. It is not a 'convenience' in any way. Which is more than I can say for the politically correct, feel good, all paths lead to love philosophy which you seem to follow.

Actually, many fundamentalists I know react for the most part out of fear. As for courage, it takes a lot of courage to love someone that your Christians friends scorn, to accept someone who behaves or looks differently than you. It takes courage to risk having nobody who wants to sit with you at the next Sunday school picnic because your are spotted having lunch with an openly gay man or woman. Ask Jesus how it feels. He got a lot of criticism for doing things like that.

[Neophyte]

RF,
Nice post! :) Kinda funny that you start out with "Your post is too long" though...pretty funny considering the length of yours! ;)

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
You are stating the above as known fact.
Is it fact or is it your assumption?

Which part of the paragraph are you speaking of? Possibly you could point out which one of the sentences you would like to know about.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz Could there be personal experiances which would prepare you to reject the bible? Your faith in things ouside of God? Your faith in your own inner feeling. Your faith in your judgement?

Could there be other factors as well which lead you to reject the bible?

ABSOLUTELY.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Why must I 'assume' the bible is true? Why is it I cannot actually KNOW it is true?

Unless you can dig up the myriad of authors and then interview eye witnesses to the events recorded there, I believe you are stuck with assuming.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
This is not true.

First, understand that 99% of the "branches" agree on 99% of the issues, that is upon the essentials.

Those outside of the 99% are in most cases considered by everyone other than themselves to be outside of Christianity. Because they reject essentials, such as who Jesus Chrsit is, did Jesus rise from the dead, etc....


Are you stating fact or opinion? Please give the source of your statistics.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
I choose no brand. . . .

I choose the "brand" . . .

Which is it. You chose or you didn't choose?

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Are you then under the assumption that Christianity requires a person to be of a specific race, with a heavenly green card?

I am aware of the prevelance of Christianity in certain regions and, as I am sure you are aware, it is practiced predominantly in the west. In eastern countries it is extremely rare.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
God does not hate "everyone" else.
Seeing as you are so very familiar with the written Word of God and Christianity I assume you will know what I mean when I say,
"For God so loved the world".


Now this is something we can agree on. You and I must serve same God. No, that's just crazy talking.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Your post is funny in that you hide your reason for posting.

Your reason for posting this post is to evangelize. Which is fine, but you could have been honest about it.


Now, why would I bother evangelizing for a religion that already assumes everyone is saved? I post for the same reason everyone else does, I assume, and that it because I want to be heard. Why did you reply to my post? Did you want to evangelize or did you just want to be heard?

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
You posted to tell us 'what it is and how it shall be'.

I write in my professional career. People who write professionally know that to write something as if you are just making a suggestion, however, don't want to be too forceful or pushy is a bit ineffective. The art of persuasion requires that you first be convinced of what you are writing about. If you are not, you don't have much hope of convincing anyone else.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Have a heck of an eternity.

So sincere, so sweet. Wow! Thanks a heck of a lot!

[rfburnhertz]

>>Actually you don't really know where "they" go you just hope they will go to Hell.<<

No Christian would hope "they" go to hell.
Even God doesn't want anyone to go to hell.

Remember... as you said...
we choose.

I choose an eternity with the God of all creation (yes... you too are among all that He has created) and so far you have choosen an eternity seperated from the God of all creation.

You don't have much time, in case you have noticed our days move quickly. And once you eternity begins, it's to late to change your mind.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Neophyte
Kinda funny that you start out with "Your post is too long" though...pretty funny considering the length of yours! ;)

I know, but half of it is quotes from her post.

I may have had a bit more to say than I had first thought.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
No Christian would hope "they" go to hell.
Even God doesn't want anyone to go to hell.

Remember... as you said...
we choose.

I choose an eternity with the God of all creation (yes... you too are among all that He has created) and so far you have choosen an eternity seperated from the God of all creation.

You don't have much time, in case you have noticed our days move quickly. And once you eternity begins, it's to late to change your mind.

If you so desparately wanted ALL the world to be saved, you would spend the remainder of your time before "eternity" begins to find proof that they won't be damned after all, just to ease your mind. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you were wrong and all the world could be saved? Or maybe being right is more important that the salvation of the world.

[Neophyte]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Actually you don't really know where "they" go you just hope they will go to Hell.

Where in my post does it say *I* hope people go to hell? I was merely pointing out that religions don't send people there. Why so vitriolic?



Actually, it is. Read 1 Corinthians 13 and read the story of the prodigal son or just about anything Jesus said about love.

Point taken. But I think you've misinterpreted mine. My point was that just because something feels good, or is popular, or is what a person happens to want in a given moment, does not necessarily make it right.

Christ didn't say "all paths lead to love" - he said "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father but through me." He *did* command us to love one another as we love ourselves. He *did* command us to forgive others just as we are forgiven. He *did* command us not to judge "lest we too be judged."

And, as you correctly point out from 1 Corinthians, if I have faith that can move mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.

No you choose to be a Methodist, Baptist, Pentacostal or whatever. You would like to believe that the choice is founded on some fact, however, you have no more idea what the real truth is than anyone. As to God's law, you would have to ask God and he/she doesn't talk out loud much. I would suggest you consult that small, still inner voice and see if you get any insight.

You make many assumptions about what I choose. Again, why so vitriolic?

As for the small, still inner voice. I did consult it. It told me there is a God. I *chose* to believe in him. My choice was founded on faith. I didn't blindly follow what felt good, or what others told me to do. I spent *years* searching and figuring out what I believed. And I had more reason than most to dislike Christianity.


Actually, many fundamentalists I know react for the most part out of fear.

Yes. Many do. And many nonbelievers react to Christians based on lack of understanding (because of past experiences, inappropriate conduct of Christians they know, stereotypes, etc).

As for courage, it takes a lot of courage to love someone that your Christians friends scorn, to accept someone who behaves or looks differently than you. It takes courage to risk having nobody who wants to sit with you at the next Sunday school picnic because your are spotted having lunch to an openly gay man or woman. Ask Jesus how it feels. He got a lot of criticism for doing things like that.

I agree - wholeheartedly. Been there and done that. But you must also admit it takes courage to pronounce yourself a Christian in a society that thinks them backward, ignorant, bigoted and hateful. Not all Christians conform to the description you've given.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Which part of the paragraph are you speaking of? Possibly you could point out which one of the sentences you would like to know about.


As I indicated, it was directly above. Directly.


ABSOLUTELY.

Then, if such is evidence against Christianity it at the very same time evidence against your claims.
So now, we are equally right and equally wrong.
It's just like the song Imagine...
Wow.. what a beautiful world.




Way not to answer the question.

[QUOTE]Are you stating fact or opinion? Please give the source of your statistics.

Fact.
Off the top O' my head I believe it is found in Right from wrong by Josh Mcdowell. The poll was conducted by Gallop. As I have the time (if I would stop posting I likely would have the time) I'll see if I can confirm.

Which is it. You chose or you didn't choose?


I believe you know what I mean.

I am aware of the prevelance of Christianity in certain regions and, as I am sure you are aware, it is practiced predominantly in the west. In eastern countries it is extremely rare.

Okay, maybe you have to speak (type :) ) more slowly for me. But I don't see what this has to do with it. Thoug, I suspect you are saying that you do in fact consider Christianity to be full of bigiots.
Please, expand your thoughts here.

Now this is something we can agree on. You and I must serve same God. No, that's just crazy talking.

Crazy talk... I agree.

Now, why would I bother evangelizing for a religion that already assumes everyone is saved?

As I said, I don't think it is wrong of you.

All people of all world views attempt to win people over.

As you know, Christians attempt to win people to Christ on a regualr basis (or atleast we should).

I write in my professional career. People who write professionally know that to write something as if you are just making a suggestion, however, don't want to be too forceful or pushy is a bit ineffective. The art of persuasion requires that you first be convinced of what you are writing about. If you are not, you don't have much hope of convincing anyone else.

But, you just told me you post to be heard. You didn't mention persuasion. So, you did post to evangelize. Okay, I just wanted to confirm.


So sincere, so sweet. Wow! Thanks a heck of a lot!

Your welcome a heck of a lot.

Though I didn't know we were attempting to fluff each other up.

How's this...

I don't think you forehead looks swollen.

I think they were just being wise-cracks.

Now, don't tell me that wasn't sweet.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
If you so desparately wanted ALL the world to be saved, you would spend the remainder of your time before "eternity" begins to find proof that they won't be damned after all, just to ease your mind. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you were wrong and all the world could be saved? Or maybe being right is more important that the salvation of the world.

The sad fact is, everyone cannot be saved because everyone does not want to be saved.

The evidence is there. I cannot convince anyone of it.

When I feel being right is important, I cease to speak. I don't plead the case.

Like when my wife and I argue, if I know I am wrong and don't want to admit it, i just say 'whatever' like a stupid little kid, and shut up.

Besides, weather you know it or not your battle with truth is not against me or any other Christians. Your battle is against the very God who created you.

You can't win.

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by wickwoman A fundamentalist Christian has to fight every day against many factors in order to continue a faulty system of beliefs... You might want to go easy on using "fundamentalist", a pejoratively loaded term... just a thought, but if you prefer to use it, it's a free country.

Yes, there are things that challenge anyone's beliefs, including yours. Pluralism in the ambient culture, loss of emotional zeal every now and then, a weak understanding of the premisses of one's own beliefs due to intellectual inadequacy or laziness--they take their toll. This is why the Bible tells us to grow in faith. It says we see through a glass and darkly, so perfect understanding is not assumed.

But there are things that don't allow for doubt. Covenant loyalty to the God we trust, and aesthetic awe (worship), just don't go with skepticism or worry. And there are many of your "fundamentalists" who are strong in faith, hope, and love. Perhaps you are conveniently ignoring the exceptions to your rule?

[prodigalson]

There are plenty of people on this board that know God personaly, they might not have met Him, you know, 'face to face', but know Him personally nonetheless. Those same poeple also know that the Bible is true, not think it is, not assume it is, but know as sure as they are standing there. You might not want to except that, you might not want to believe it, you can even say "I(wickwoman) can't tell someone they are wrong b/c I don't know.", BUT you can't say "Nobody really knows about God." because there are people here that do know, you just refuse to accept that. I know without a doubt God is real and the Bible is true b/c God opened my eyes and showed me that fact so you can't sit there and try and tell me I can't be sure just b/c you are not sure.

You know, if the "fundamental christians" are wrong than in a sense that is great news b/c billions of people will not suffer the wrath of God, and if we all go to heaven than great. Unfortunatly, that is a dream world and no matter how much we might want something to be, it still will not make it happen.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by Neophyte
Where in my post does it say *I* hope people go to hell? I was merely pointing out that religions don't send people there. Why so vitriolic?

If you believe that someone is going to Hell you must hope for it because it is not founded on any personal experience of yours, in other words, you've not met anyone who has been there. Therefore, you have faith the people will go to Hell. Hope is the foundation of faith. When you loose hope in Hell, you will also loose faith in it.


Originally posted by Neophyte
Not all Christians conform to the description you've given.

This thread was clearly directed at fundamentalists. If you are not one then you shouldn't be offended.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz

I don't think you forehead looks swollen.

I think they were just being wise-cracks.

Now, don't tell me that wasn't sweet.

Thanks, I can stop wearing bangs now.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Thanks, I can stop wearing bangs now.

:)
No, no.
Keep the bangs. imo, women look silly with no bangs.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
If you believe that someone is going to Hell you must hope for it because it is not founded on any personal experience of yours, in other words, you've not met anyone who has been there. Therefore, you have faith the people will go to Hell. Hope is the foundation of faith. When you loose hope in Hell, you will also loose faith in it.




This thread was clearly directed at fundamentalists. If you are not one then you shouldn't be offended.
We will have to take a vote to be sure...
but I do think this is the most silly thing you have yet said in this thread you began.

btw... I am still wanting to know from you why we humanbeings cannot know if the bible is or is not true...........

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Neophyte
Christians would agree. Faith is founded on choice. I *chose* to believe in Christ. Actually, this may be a huge overstatement.

A great many so-called Christians would, in fact, disagree; they are called Calvinists, and they maintain that you/I/we "choose" nothing at all, that we have no ability to make such choices. Interesting, huh?:cool:

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
We will have to take a vote to be sure...
but I do think this is the most silly thing you have yet said in this thread you began.

Why don't you point out exactly what is silly about the statement and why it is silly if you'd like to have a for real discussion. Or, are you just insulting for the sake of insult?

Originally posted by rfburnhertz btw... I am still wanting to know from you why we humanbeings cannot know if the bible is or is not true...........

I addition to what I've already said i.e. - you can't dig up the authors of the Bible, nor can you interview eye witnesses to the happenings recorded in it - I would also add that I once believed that all the Bible was true. In fact, I "knew" it was true. Then I stop sheltering myself from real people and the real world and discovered I had made an error in judgment. This is why I say you can't "know." Because there must be something in your life you've known before but discovered later was a mistake.

Belief in the whole Bible requires you to create a system of beliefs that requires too much defense. When you find yourself defending your belief system against the world, your co-workers, your own inner thoughts and feelings, scientific facts, logic and reasoning, you should re-evaluate its validity.

[Flake]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
No Christian would hope "they" go to hell.
Even God doesn't want anyone to go to hell.


Why did he make hell then? Would it not make more sense to allow the folly of mankind to continue as it does, then on judgment day he can show all the unbelievers that they where mistaken, pointing at the cloudy expanse of heaven, and say "Well, here I am, you didnt believe did you, what say you now?", to which the infidels would reply "Oh ****, there is a god, nice to meet you.", and an all loving god would say, "No matter, in ya come kids, youve been silly but I luvz ya, please, take a cloud, we got hot soup tonite, yummy! :Big God Grin:".

But no, straight to eternal damnation as, yes you guessed it, punishment. A punishment that does not even serve as deterant example, punishment for what reason? Pleasure? Justice? What does this teach us? Should parents kill their children if they dont do what they want? Little Jonny didnt kiss me au revoir this morning, now he must die? Where does forgiveness come in? I see none. Your god doesnt forgive. Its the christian voice in unison chanting "THEY DONT DESERVE HEAVEN, why should they get what I get when I put all that effort in to be christian? Not fair, not fair!!!"

The prodigal son springs to mind.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Flake
The prodigal son springs to mind.

And why not John 3:16?

[wickwoman]

Dear Flake:

The prodigal son is an excellent example. Let's review the story - the son was ungrateful, the father was loving. The son left with his money, the father was loving. The son lived a life of drinking and debauchery, the father was loving. The son used up all his money and lived with pigs, the father was loving. The son decided he'd go back and be his father's slave, the father was loving.

There is one in the story who was not loving, but jealous - the other brother. Some Christians are that other brother.

[Flake]

Originally posted by RogerB
And why not John 3:16?

And why not what? There is no evidence of forgiveness in this passage. It is basically a veiled threat.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by wickwoman
I addition to what I've already said i.e. - you can't dig up the authors of the Bible, nor can you interview eye witnesses to the happenings recorded in it - I would also add that I once believed that all the Bible was true. In fact, I "knew" it was true. Then I stop sheltering myself from real people and the real world and discovered I had made an error in judgment. This is why I say you can't "know." Because there must be something in your life you've known before but discovered later was a mistake.

Wrong. Just b/c you thought the Bible was true and now don't doesn't mean there aren't many people who know the Bible is true. If you knew it was true, you would still believe it, but since you don't, you just thought it was true.

Many people here know without a doubt the Bible is true and God is real, just like Adam did, Noah, Moses, David, the 11, Paul, etc. Nobody could walk up to them and say, "You can't be sure." Our Faith is that confidant.

You can say, "I am not sure about God.", but you can't say "Nobody can really know." Whether you believe us or not b/c some do know. Just b/c you don't know something doesn't mean others don't either.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Flake:

The prodigal son is an excellent example. Let's review the story - the son was ungrateful, the father was loving. The son left with his money, the father was loving. The son lived a life of drinking and debauchery, the father was loving. The son used up all his money and lived with pigs, the father was loving. The son decided he'd go back and be his father's slave, the father was loving.

There is one in the story who was not loving, but jealous - the other brother. Some Christians are that other brother.

So what? Does that make all of us hope people go to hell? Does that make the Bible not true? Does that make people not know if the Bible is true and Jesus Christ is the only way?

[Shaun]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Flake:

The prodigal son is an excellent example. Let's review the story - the son was ungrateful, the father was loving. The son left with his money, the father was loving. The son lived a life of drinking and debauchery, the father was loving. The son used up all his money and lived with pigs, the father was loving. The son decided he'd go back and be his father's slave, the father was loving.

There is one in the story who was not loving, but jealous - the other brother. Some Christians are that other brother.
Yet you ignore the main thrust, like most Universalists or other hedonist-love-blinded deists; the point of that passage is the mercy of God, that He would continue to love us despite our running away, and most importantly, that he always honored our wishes, let us run away, and let us come home running to Him on our own time and decisions.

Whether or not you decide to come home is up to you. He will be waiting there loving you when you come, but if you choose not to, He will honor your request.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by Shaun
Whether or not you decide to come home is up to you. He will be waiting there loving you when you come, but if you choose not to, He will honor your request.

The son did come home. We will all come home. Truth/love is like that, you can't avoid it forever. That's what makes God omnipotent. He/she is ALL powerful. That means if God wants something, it happens.

You cling to some fantasy that a mere human gets the PLEASURE of burning in hell if he wants to? That God is doing us some favor by allowing us that LUXURY. That's a dream, no, a nightmare. Yes God's love is forced on us, thank God it is. You cannot avoid the laws of nature. Gravity just is. You don't have to believe in it. But, if you walk off a cliff, you'll fall. The same with God/love. He/she just is. You don't have to believe in him/her. You don't have to return the love. You are loved just the same. You are not punished for not knowing. That wouldn't be love at all.

[One Eyed Jack]

Keep telling yourself that tripe, wickwoman. We aren't buying it.

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Keep telling yourself that tripe, wickwoman. We aren't buying it.

What is your problem Jack?

What seems to bother you so much, that all you can do is condemn this nice woman.

Because she is not buying the lies you have been told, and you are telling yourself?

Take offense on the truth, eh?

Good luck to you, Jack!

Maybe one day you will face the truth, and you will undoubtly know that it is the truth.

The truth isn't offensive Jack, it is the other way around, it is you, who has taken offense in the truth, and you project that offense onto other people.

Perhaps one day you will reconsider what you hold to be true, and what not.

You are never to old to reconsider what you should and should not belief, and nobody will judge you for facing truth as it is.

You will raise above yourself, when you face truth. Your truth. The truth about yourself.

The truth is, that truth itself isn't offensive, you have only thought it was, and taken offense in the truth. And all you will ask yourself, why haven't I considered this to be the truth more earlier, why did I took offense in the truth?

You are entitled of knowing truth, just like anybody else.

Whenever that will be is up to you. You just take the time that you need. Any time as you please.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
What is your problem Jack?

No problem. What's yours?

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Why don't you point out exactly what is silly about the statement and why it is silly if you'd like to have a for real discussion. Or, are you just insulting for the sake of insult?


No, no...
Now, being that you began the thread I am making the assumption that you are serious about the topic.

If so, no game playing.

I'll show you my answer if you show me yours.


I addition to what I've already said i.e. - you can't dig up the authors of the Bible, nor can you interview eye witnesses to the happenings recorded in it - I would also add that I once believed that all the Bible was true. In fact, I "knew" it was true. Then I stop sheltering myself from real people and the real world and discovered I had made an error in judgment. This is why I say you can't "know." Because there must be something in your life you've known before but discovered later was a mistake.

Belief in the whole Bible requires you to create a system of beliefs that requires too much defense. When you find yourself defending your belief system against the world, your co-workers, your own inner thoughts and feelings, scientific facts, logic and reasoning, you should re-evaluate its validity.

This is what I was just speaking of.
You have not answered the question, you have dodged the question.

I'm sure you are able to understand that I am seeking an answer of fact from you, not your opinion.

An answer which demonstrates that I cannot know the bible is true.

I don't mind having a bit of fun in our disscusion here. You know, the forehead thing, the how sweet I am... etc.

However, no games. I'm not playing.

I know the game, I've seen it played before.

You clearly believe you have a knowledge beyond that of those of us who call ourselves Christian.

Please do share.
But I am NOT interested in your opinions.
I am asking you to demonstrate your claims.

You began this thread not asking questions but making statements of fact. Now I am asking you to demonstrate the truthfulness of your claims.

If you are unable to, then I thank you for your time and the brief discussion.

If you are able to, then I will be very amazed, and will be very happy to continue the conversation.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by wickwoman
You cling to some fantasy that a mere human gets the PLEASURE of burning in hell if he wants to?
Sure, it's in the Bible. Of course, I don't really consider it a pleasure. I'm not into masochism.

That God is doing us some favor by allowing us that LUXURY. That's a dream, no, a nightmare. Yes God's love is forced on us, thank God it is. You cannot avoid the laws of nature. Gravity just is. You don't have to believe in it. But, if you walk off a cliff, you'll fall. The same with God/love. He/she just is. You don't have to believe in him/her. You don't have to return the love. You are loved just the same.
I never said God's love was something that is turned on and off. In fact, God's love reaches those who deny Him.

You are not punished for not knowing. That wouldn't be love at all.
You know. I'm sorry, but that whole "well I wasn't totally sure about it, so I didn't accept God" thing is just baloney. As much as the Bible tells about stepping out in faith, you Universalists sure never do listen, now don't you?

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by attention
What is your problem Jack?

What seems to bother you so much, that all you can do is condemn this nice woman.

Because she is not buying the lies you have been told, and you are telling yourself?

Take offense on the truth, eh?

Good luck to you, Jack!

Maybe one day you will face the truth, and you will undoubtly know that it is the truth.


Being that what Jack believes is untrue and being that you know it is untrue then I am sure you will be kind enough to expose us all to the falsehoods of Jacks beliefs and demonstrate for us the "real" truth.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Flake
Why did he make hell then? Would it not make more sense to allow the folly of mankind to continue as it does, then on judgment day he can show all the unbelievers that they where mistaken, [SNIP] [/QUOTE}

Ahh...
I see that you are wiser than God.

[QUOTE]But no, straight to eternal damnation as, yes you guessed it, punishment. A punishment that does not even serve as deterant example, punishment for what reason? Pleasure? Justice?

It isn't a simple punishment. We all have an eternity to face. We can choose to spend this eternity with God or without Him.

Why would God force those who do not want to be with Him to spend eternity with Him?

God is Holy. An eternity with God will be spent in the presence of that perfect holiness.

An eternity apart from God will of course be a complete abscence of holiness. Hell has the attributes it does because of the abscence of God.

Its the christian voice in unison chanting "THEY DONT DESERVE HEAVEN,

Pssttt.......
No one deserves heaven.
Not me, not you, not anyone.
But God in His love and grace has made a way.

The option is there we can choose either heaven or hell.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Pssttt.......
No one deserves heaven.
Not me, not you, not anyone.
But God in His love and grace has made a way.

The option is there we can choose either heaven or hell.
Amen. :thumb:

[wickwoman]

Dear Rfburnhertz:

The only game being played is in your head. You throw out insults and have no real reason for the criticism. How exactly would you like for me to prove to you that you are wrong? You and I both know that it won't happen. No matter what I offer your own human ego will continue to defend that vast terrain in your head of separateness.

The thread is founded on the following facts:

1. There are many branches of Christianity.
2. You can choose which one you want.
3. Some Christian churches focus on love, others on Hell and sin
4. If you focus on love, you will choose a church that does
5. If you focus on Hell, you will chose a church that does
6. If you are a bigot, you will go to church with bigots

The title "Stop Making Excuses" is to say this - you made the choice, now own up to it. So, if you are one of those people and, mind you, I have no idea if you are or not . . . It isn't God who is ugly and hateful - it is you. Those of us who know the true nature of a loving God are offended to hear you slander him/her so.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Rfburnhertz:

The only game being played is in your head. You throw out insults and have no real reason for the criticism. How exactly would you like for me to prove to you that you are wrong? You and I both know that it won't happen. No matter what I offer your own human ego will continue to defend that vast terrain in your head of separateness.

The thread is founded on the following facts:

1. There are many branches of Christianity.
2. You can choose which one you want.
3. Some Christian churches focus on love, others on Hell and sin
4. If you focus on love, you will choose a church that does
5. If you focus on Hell, you will chose a church that does
6. If you are a bigot, you will go to church with bigots

The title "Stop Making Excuses" is to say this - you made the choice, now own up to it. So, if you are one of those people and, mind you, I have no idea if you are or not . . . It isn't God who is ugly and hateful - it is you. Those of us who know the true nature of a loving God are offended to hear you slander him/her so.

There may be many "branches" of Christianity but they have one thing in common: Jesus Christ. If they don't, they're not Christian.

Do you believe that Jesus is the only way to be restored to a harmonious relationship with our creator Father. Through His death and resurrection, He opened God's kingdom to us so that we may come into His presence as His forgiven and beloved sons and daughters?

[wickwoman]

Dear RogerB:

I believe the MAN Jesus was a collection of organs, skin and bones, just like you and me. I believe the CHRIST is the spirit of the living God who dwells in each and every person who lives or ever has. So, to answer the question. I do believe the Christ is the only way to God. To realize this essence of God in you is the way to find God. Everyone will realize the Christ. Everyone will realize God.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear RogerB:

I believe the MAN Jesus was a collection of organs, skin and bones, just like you and me. I believe the CHRIST is the spirit of the living God who dwells in each and every person who lives or ever has. So, to answer the question. I do believe the Christ is the only way to God. To realize this essence of God in you is the way to find God. Everyone will realize the Christ. Everyone will realize God.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who, along with the Holy Spirit, has existed through all eternity with God the Father and that Jesus entered time and creation as a human being to reveal God and the nature of God's kingdom to us?

[wickwoman]

RogerB:

I believe that Jesus was a soul who had realized in a previous life or possibly earlier in his incarnation as Jesus the TRUTH that all of us are to realize. He then proceeded to speak of this truth and hopefully reveal the true nature of all souls. This is also very similar to the story of the Buddha who realized the truth and, along with his disciples, went about teaching of how to reach enlightenment. It has happened countless times throughout eternity. Shams e Tabritz was also possilby a realized soul. Many others that never made the history books. Possibly some are walking around right now. There could even be one posting on TOL.

[Flake]

Speaking off the top of my head here, Roger be kind, but...
The essential goodness of christianity is obvious, peace, love etc, but it cannot be reconciled with "threats". It just does not fit. Hell, inquisition, crusades, damnation...it all smells far too human.

The only, possibly bizzar, interpretation I can conclude is that EARTHLY life is more fullfilling following Jesus, but AFTERLIFE is for everyone, where a non believer can spend time reflecting, via conscience, on their earthly misadventures, a possible hell in itself if they have lived a bad life and now find themselves in heaven with A PURE HEART, but a memory of an IMPURE HEART. The Believer/follower of Jesus would not have this internal wrangling.

Just musing as I dont believe in a god, but this does sound attractive. This then negates a negative input from a loving god as it will be on your own head. You may say going to hell is on your own head, but, this would require a REJECTION of a person by god, which is equally irreconcilable with the ALL LOVING nature god is supposed to have. Do you see the quandary?
I would say that removal of a threat of hell would be more logical and conducive/seductive to possible converts, those on the fringe.

You may say what would stop a person from being a complete criminalesque antichrist if there where no threat of damnation or punishment. Well, surely a sincere adoption of Jesus' ways is more important than a threat induced adoption, if you see what I mean.

[prodigalson]

Far too human? Why would man write a book that says we(humans) are low-lifes scumbags and exalt God to the highest and that most people will go to hell? If man wrote the Bible with his own knowledge it would sound a lot like some of the posts in this thread i.e. all religions go to the same god, just be a good person and you'll work it out, and everyone goes to Heaven.

God created Hell for Satan and his demons, but if sinful man wants to follow his father the Devil to Hell than what is God supposed to do? Take away our Free Will?

[wickwoman]

Dear Prodigalson:

Man believes that continued separation from God - by whatever means - is the way to insure the continued existence of ego. Any attempt to put man back in God's graces is rejected by ego because ego fears that union with God = oblivion. Man has imagined this whole separation scenario thus the Bible - written by men has reflected that belief in many of the "uninspired" passages. There are glimpses of the truth in the Bible. Many of them were quotes of Jesus.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Flake
And why not what? There is no evidence of forgiveness in this passage. It is basically a veiled threat.

No forgiveness? Every one of us deserves to go to hell and yet God offers us salvation through Jesus.

[claire]

Originally posted by wickwoman

The thread is founded on the following facts:

1. There are many branches of Christianity.
2. You can choose which one you want.
3. Some Christian churches focus on love, others on Hell and sin
4. If you focus on love, you will choose a church that does
5. If you focus on Hell, you will chose a church that does
6. If you are a bigot, you will go to church with bigots

The title "Stop Making Excuses" is to say this - you made the choice, now own up to it. So, if you are one of those people and, mind you, I have no idea if you are or not . . . It isn't God who is ugly and hateful - it is you. Those of us who know the true nature of a loving God are offended to hear you slander him/her so.

Well, there is only one thing in that statement that I slightly disagree with....and that would be to change No. 1. Christianity has one steadfast (that being Christ) which defines it, but you are right, within the "religion" there are many "sects", all claiming to be adherents of Christianity....and within those "sects" is held a different perception of the message, exactly as you pointed out.

Items 2-6 are a perfect analysis... kudos wickwoman!

Blessings,

Claire

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Flake
Speaking off the top of my head here, Roger be kind,.

I can be kind!


but...
The essential goodness of christianity is obvious, peace, love etc, but it cannot be reconciled with "threats". It just does not fit. Hell, inquisition, crusades, damnation...it all smells far too human.


But it's NOT a threat. It's hope for the hopeless. It's an offer of everlasting life with God in Heaven for the undeserving.


The only, possibly bizzar, interpretation I can conclude is that EARTHLY life is more fullfilling following Jesus,

This is true!


but AFTERLIFE is for everyone, where a non believer can spend time reflecting, via conscience, on their earthly misadventures, a possible hell in itself if they have lived a bad life and now find themselves in heaven with A PURE HEART, but a memory of an IMPURE HEART. The Believer/follower of Jesus would not have this internal wrangling.

Interesting perspective. It could be very much like this. But also consider that the non-believer, now with the knowledge that God is real, must live eternally separated from Him. Think of a child growing up alone but knowing that his parents live just around the corner.


Just musing as I dont believe in a god, but this does sound attractive. This then negates a negative input from a loving god as it will be on your own head. You may say going to hell is on your own head, but, this would require a REJECTION of a person by god,

No, it is the person who REJECTS God. You can't disbelieve in God and yet turn around and interpret His word to fit your distorted world.


which is equally irreconcilable with the ALL LOVING nature god is supposed to have. Do you see the quandary?

No quandry if you stop making incorrect assumptions.


I would say that removal of a threat of hell would be more logical and conducive/seductive to possible converts, those on the fringe.

You may say what would stop a person from being a complete criminalesque antichrist if there where no threat of damnation or punishment. Well, surely a sincere adoption of Jesus' ways is more important than a threat induced adoption, if you see what I mean.

Again, there is no threat.

[Flake]

Originally posted by RogerB
No forgiveness? Every one of us deserves to go to hell and yet God offers us salvation through Jesus.

This doesnt make sense and it is not forgivness, unless you are stating that gods creation is not perfect and not in his image, in fact riddled with sin straight from the factory, broke before you get it. Bit odd.

I think you are saying that the default state of mankind is one that is hellbound. Only god could have decreed this. No matter WHAT, god doesnt have to have it this way. God is saying that this creation he loves is going to hell as a default situation. Where is the love in that?
So, we only get love in return for the same, sort of an "Indian Giver" style of love? That is not sincere and this reeks of humanistic interpretation and values. There is no spiritual feel to this cold scenario, it is distasteful. Its rather like living in a country that presumes guilt before innocence, being born in a jail until you can prove your integrity.

Originally posted by RogerB
But also consider that the non-believer, now with the knowledge that God is real, must live eternally separated from Him. Think of a child growing up alone but knowing that his parents live just around the corner.


Why? The parents, if they love the child, would go and retrieve it.
Why cant god find it in his heart to forgive this "prodigal son" now that they KNOW the truth?

The only way to know there is a god with 100% certainty is when you die, but this according to you is too late. What is it about god that demands faith without conclusive evidence as the only passport to salvation, when all the doubts and questions can all be easily answered in one quick trip to the afterlife? Why play this "faith game" with people, what is the point?

If the point is to "test", where does that lead? People are a mixed bunch and levels of believability among them is varied.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

This is the nature of people. they dont and cannot all believe the same thing at the same time all the time. The nature that creates this chaos in humanity was, according to you, from god, so why penalise us for it?

The picture of god you paint is not loving. Either this is the case, or it is not being presented correctly.

Originally posted by RogerB
No, it is the person who REJECTS God. You can't disbelieve in God and yet turn around and interpret His word to fit your distorted world.


Yes, they reject the notion or the idea wether they simply dont believe, have never believed, or dont even know anything about god. Fine. But my point was, if you are correct that there is a judgment day after we die, any rejection while standing at the pearly gates would be futile and impossible because the truth would be revealed undeniably. Stripped ot mortal, carnal behaviour and in a soul only state, the absolute truth would be presented. The unbelievers would believe. But, you are saying that god, now with these new believers, would cast them away because, in their imperfect, chaotic human life they didnt believe the unbelievable. Sorry, but it kinda sucks lemons big time.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Prodigalson:

Man believes that continued separation from God - by whatever means - is the way to insure the continued existence of ego. Any attempt to put man back in God's graces is rejected by ego because ego fears that union with God = oblivion. Man has imagined this whole separation scenario thus the Bible - written by men has reflected that belief in many of the "uninspired" passages. There are glimpses of the truth in the Bible. Many of them were quotes of Jesus.

What? Man's ego will say man deserves Hell and God is Almighty? Do you see the error in that? Man's ego is what keeps him from believing he needs a Savior. A man's ego is such that he thinks he is OK and doesn't need saving. A man's ego will not let him call himself a low-life scumbag. That is what an ego does, it brings man up and God down.

If we walked up to 1,000 people on the street and asked them "where would they go if they died today?", how many would say Hell? Maybe 1 or 2? How many would say Heaven because they are a good person? 998 or maybe 1,000.

[prodigalson]

Flake, why do you insist on saying God created an imperfect being? Because all humans are now sinners? God made us perfect(well Adam and Eve) but they fell.

Wrong, you can have 100% certianty before you die, just b/c you don't have it doesn't mean others don't. Did Adam have 100% certainty? Did Moses, David, Paul, and The Apostles? I know you don't believe but for arguments sake, would these people be 100% sure. Yes they would.

God can't just say "Don't worry about it, I'll let you in My kingdom." b/c he can't have sin in His presence, that is why Jesus Christ came, if we could get in without being cleansed by Jesus' blood than there would be no need for the Crucifixion.

[Flake]

Originally posted by prodigalson
God can't just say "Don't worry about it, I'll let you in My kingdom." b/c he can't have sin in His presence

Then he will be a very lonely god.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Flake
Then he will be a very lonely god.
If not for the blood of Jesus Christ, the lamb who was slain as a propitiation for our sins, the only gateway into eternal communion with our Father! :D

[claire]

Originally posted by prodigalson
Flake, why do you insist on saying God created an imperfect being? Because all humans are now sinners? God made us perfect(well Adam and Eve) but they fell.

Wrong, you can have 100% certianty before you die, just b/c you don't have it doesn't mean others don't. Did Adam have 100% certainty? Did Moses, David, Paul, and The Apostles? I know you don't believe but for arguments sake, would these people be 100% sure. Yes they would.

God can't just say "Don't worry about it, I'll let you in My kingdom." b/c he can't have sin in His presence, that is why Jesus Christ came, if we could get in without being cleansed by Jesus' blood than there would be no need for the Crucifixion.

God created man from the beginning with the free will to choose....which he does...and for which he has or will pay when his choices are not "godly"....

God created EXACTLY what we are...which is imperfect, mortal beings....then he gave us his message by which we could be forgiven for the frailties of our mortal selves....in order to be one with him...

If God is the "author" of everything....he is also the "author" of sin, not because he chose it for us...because he allowed US to choose it....and gave us the path back from it....

Claire

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Flake
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RogerB
No forgiveness? Every one of us deserves to go to hell and yet God offers us salvation through Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesnt make sense and it is not forgivness, unless you are stating that gods creation is not perfect and not in his image, in fact riddled with sin straight from the factory, broke before you get it. Bit odd.

I think you are saying that the default state of mankind is one that is hellbound. Only god could have decreed this. No matter WHAT, god doesnt have to have it this way. God is saying that this creation he loves is going to hell as a default situation. Where is the love in that?



Not odd at all. Others have answered this truthfully.


So, we only get love in return for the same, sort of an "Indian Giver" style of love? That is not sincere and this reeks of humanistic interpretation and values. There is no spiritual feel to this cold scenario, it is distasteful. Its rather like living in a country that presumes guilt before innocence, being born in a jail until you can prove your integrity.



God knew and loved you before you were even born. God continues to loves you, born again or not. He desparately wants to have a personal relationship with you. More desparately than you can even imagine.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RogerB
But also consider that the non-believer, now with the knowledge that God is real, must live eternally separated from Him. Think of a child growing up alone but knowing that his parents live just around the corner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? The parents, if they love the child, would go and retrieve it.
Why cant god find it in his heart to forgive this "prodigal son" now that they KNOW the truth?



My point wasn't about forgiveness...it was to illustrate what hell might be like.



The only way to know there is a god with 100% certainty is when you die, but this according to you is too late. What is it about god that demands faith without conclusive evidence as the only passport to salvation, when all the doubts and questions can all be easily answered in one quick trip to the afterlife? Why play this "faith game" with people, what is the point?

If the point is to "test", where does that lead? People are a mixed bunch and levels of believability among them is varied.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

This is the nature of people. they dont and cannot all believe the same thing at the same time all the time. The nature that creates this chaos in humanity was, according to you, from god, so why penalise us for it?

The picture of god you paint is not loving. Either this is the case, or it is not being presented correctly.



You can't see the picture because you lack faith. Find a Christian in your hometown that you can talk to. Suspend your disbelief momentarily and take a leap of faith. Try it!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RogerB
No, it is the person who REJECTS God. You can't disbelieve in God and yet turn around and interpret His word to fit your distorted world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, they reject the notion or the idea wether they simply dont believe, have never believed, or dont even know anything about god. Fine. But my point was, if you are correct that there is a judgment day after we die, any rejection while standing at the pearly gates would be futile and impossible because the truth would be revealed undeniably. Stripped ot mortal, carnal behaviour and in a soul only state, the absolute truth would be presented. The unbelievers would believe. But, you are saying that god, now with these new believers, would cast them away because, in their imperfect, chaotic human life they didnt believe the unbelievable. Sorry, but it kinda sucks lemons big time.

God makes the rules - it's his universe.

[wickwoman]

Dear RogerB:

Originally posted by RogerB
But it's NOT a threat. It's hope for the hopeless. It's an offer of everlasting life with God in Heaven for the undeserving.


It's hope of salvation from the VERY CONDITION THAT YOUR GOD SUPPOSEDLY CREATED. If your God had not supposedly created Hell in the first place, there would be no need for salvation from it. It's sort of like if I set your house on fire but then offered you a hose if you'd comply with certain stipulations and requirements.


Originally posted by RogerB
No, it is the person who REJECTS God. You can't disbelieve in God and yet turn around and interpret His word to fit your distorted world.


Do you honestly believe there are people running around who know the Bible is true and that God is real and they just decide to reject it all because they are stubborn? That's ridiculous. Nobody would reject God if they really knew him/her. That's why God won't punish them for not knowing.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by prodigalson
Flake, why do you insist on saying God created an imperfect being? Because all humans are now sinners? God made us perfect(well Adam and Eve) but they fell

Adam and Eve, according to you had the potential to go wrong so they weren't perfect. It's sort of like if I baked a cake and it fell 10 minutes after I took it out of the oven. Was it a perfect cake or flawed?

[wickwoman]

Dear Claire:

Thank you and welcome to the discussion. I don't believe we've met. It's nice to have a new perspective.

It's amazing to have Claire, Flake, attention and me all here together at once. You know, that almost never happens. IT'S WONDERFUL!

[RogerB]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Do you honestly believe there are people running around who know the Bible is true and that God is real and they just decide to reject it all because they are stubborn? That's ridiculous. Nobody would reject God if they really knew him/her. That's why God won't punish them for not knowing.

They're called atheists.

[claire]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Adam and Eve, according to you had the potential to go wrong so they weren't perfect. It's sort of like if I baked a cake and it fell 10 minutes after I took it out of the oven. Was it a perfect cake or flawed?

They had free will....there is where your answer lies, ww.....

God created them with the capability to choose....did he wish for us to choose "Him" over other things..yes...

But when they chose "evil" over "him".....God, being the just and merciful God that he is....said to the instigator of their temptation...."ok....I am a just and merciful God....to ALL my creations.....(which included Lucifer, the temptor) continued to allow man (and Lucifer) a level playing field.....man can choose what path he wishes to follow....

Did God "know" all this would shake out exactly as it did and has....of course....while he doesn't interfere with our choices....he is omniscient and knew we would have them.....and make them.....and he gave us a "way" to overcome them.....

Claire

edit: It's nice to meet you too, ww :D

[RogerB]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Adam and Eve, according to you had the potential to go wrong so they weren't perfect. It's sort of like if I baked a cake and it fell 10 minutes after I took it out of the oven. Was it a perfect cake or flawed?

I can dress you up in a clean, white gown and sit you next to a mud puddle. You have the choice to stay out of the mud or jump into it. Let's say you decide to jump into it. The gown is now muddy. Was it clean to begin with?

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by RogerB
I can dress you up in a clean, white gown and sit you next to a mud puddle. You have the choice to stay out of the mud or jump into it. Let's say you decide to jump into it. The gown is now muddy. Was it clean to begin with?

Dear RogerB:

A gown has no will to decide to jump into the mud or not. The person wearing the gown made a bad decision to do it, so are you saying the person wearing it was perfect until she jumped into the puddle? If you are, then I would say she wouldn't have made a bad decision if she was perfect in the first place, white gown or not.

[PureX]

I never jump in mud puddles wearing white gowns, I must be PERFECT!

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by PureX
I never jump in mud puddles wearing white gowns, I must be PERFECT!

I agree. You are.

Where have you been? I was talking about you again.

[prodigalson]

Do you honestly believe there are people running around who know the Bible is true and that God is real and they just decide to reject it all because they are stubborn?

You better believe it, I did, and others do too. I wanted to keep doing drugs and party.

That's ridiculous. Nobody would reject God if they really knew him/her. That's why God won't punish them for not knowing.

If they truly knew Him, they wouldn't reject Him, but since most people have their perverted view of God and don't want to know the truth than it is their fault for being stubborn and wilfully ignorant. They will refuse to believe the truth b/c it doesn't go with their human knowledge and hence they raise themselves above God, whether they want to admit that or not that is what happens. They say God is wrong and I am right b/c this is how it should be, and that is a no no.

Also, if I refuse to pay attention in class I will fail the test, who's fault is it, mine for not trying to get the answer or the teacher for failing me? Me of course since I was indifferent to the task at hand. "I passed you anyway Jeremy, I can't fail you for not knowing."

Just the fact that we(people) do not do everything in our power to seek and find the will of God proves what kind of arrogant, selfish, ungratefull, wretches we truly are and deserve the punishment we get. God is real but most don't care, they think they are good enough and deserve Heaven. People will never say they deserve Heaven but their actions speak quite differently.

Claire, God did make us perfect, Free Will doesn't make us imperfect. We just screwed it up.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Adam and Eve, according to you had the potential to go wrong so they weren't perfect.

They wouldn't have been perfect without the potential to go wrong (i.e. disobey God).

It's sort of like if I baked a cake and it fell 10 minutes after I took it out of the oven.

No, it's more like you baked a perfect cake (that oddly enough had free will, but for the sake of argument we'll grant this), and somebody came along ten minutes later and convinced it to take a nosedive into the floor.

[claire]

Originally posted by prodigalson
Claire, God did make us perfect, Free Will doesn't make us imperfect. We just screwed it up.

Well, I agree AND disagree....PS....he made us what we are...man...with the ability to choose good over evil, right over wrong, knowledge over ignorance, and beauty over ugliness....

Now in THAT sense...yes, we are perfect....for his PLAN.....

Everything that "matters" in the world has a standard against which it can be weighed or judged....how perfect are his blueprints....that he expects us to discern his message (or not) and make the right choices (or not).....it is the complete and total reason for our being.....in that respect his PLAN is perfect....we are not....but even in that, we perfectly fit into the overall scheme of things....

Blessings,

claire

[RogerB]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear RogerB:

A gown has no will to decide to jump into the mud or not. The person wearing the gown made a bad decision to do it, so are you saying the person wearing it was perfect until she jumped into the puddle? If you are, then I would say she wouldn't have made a bad decision if she was perfect in the first place, white gown or not.

SO does your cake have free will? :chuckle:

[wickwoman]

Dear RogerB:

My cake didn't have to do anything. It just was. Your gown had to decide to jump into a puddle. See the difference? When you give an example you should try to make the scenario a little more realistic. If you'd like to discuss animated beings then fine, just don't give the ability to do something to a gown. I didn't give the cake an ability it doesn't possess. :D

[prodigalson]

Claire, we really can't even use examples of ying yang actions b/c when Adam and Eve were created the only thing that was wrong to do was eat from the tree that God told them not to. Every word they would of spoke would be sinless, every tone they spoke the words in would also be. Every action they could of done would of been sinless just as long as they didn't eat from that tree. Every choice would of been sinless, every action would of been sinless. Once they did eat from the tree God commanded against, sin came into the world and threw everything for a loop. Now there was sinfull rage, lust, pride, disease etc. Now I don't know if every choice Adam and Eve would of made would of been right in the sense that they could of made a wrong turn and got lost on the way back home or something like that. Maybe every action would of been correct before the fall, maybe not.

After God had finished creation there was nothing wrong with it. Everyone should be able to agree with that.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Rfburnhertz:

The only game being played is in your head. You throw out insults and have no real reason for the criticism. How exactly would you like for me to prove to you that you are wrong? You and I both know that it won't happen. No matter what I offer your own human ego will continue to defend that vast terrain in your head of separateness.

Yes, I've gone out of my way to insult you.
And you had begun this thread with hugs and kisses.

Your thread began with purposeful insults.

Yes. My human ego. I should put this human ego aside and embrace your wonderful wisdom. And because I do not, it is my ego that is the problem.

It has nothing to do with your having made a claim (more than one claim actually) of supposed fact and backed your supposed facts up with mere opinion.

I have asked you three or four times now to demonstrate that we as humans CANNOT know if the bible is or is not true.

You continue to offer opinion only.


The thread is founded on the following facts:

1. There are many branches of Christianity.
2. You can choose which one you want.
3. Some Christian churches focus on love, others on Hell and sin
4. If you focus on love, you will choose a church that does
5. If you focus on Hell, you will chose a church that does
6. If you are a bigot, you will go to church with bigots


Your first post was based upon these six points?
Shouldn't 4,5 and 6 all be one point.


The title "Stop Making Excuses" is to say this - you made the choice, now own up to it.

I have owned up to being a Christian. Cannot speak for other Christians.

Please, keep the phrase 'own up to it' in mind when you stand before God. Because yes, just as I have made the choice you also have made a choice.


Those of us who know the true nature of a loving God are offended to hear you slander him/her so.

This of course states as fact that you know the true nature of a loving God.

If you ever answer my first question. I will of course answer the question you asked of me. And then my next question of you will be to demonstrate that you do indeed know the true nature of a loving God.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear RogerB:



It's hope of salvation from the VERY CONDITION THAT YOUR GOD SUPPOSEDLY CREATED. If your God had not supposedly created Hell in the first place, there would be no need for salvation from it. It's sort of like if I set your house on fire but then offered you a hose if you'd comply with certain stipulations and requirements.


No condition has been given. Only a choice.

To make it disgusting in whole to you I ask,
do you want to spend eternity with the God I worship? I doubt it.

So you have a choice. You can spend eternity apart from this God.

Do you honestly believe there are people running around who know the Bible is true and that God is real and they just decide to reject it all because they are stubborn? That's ridiculous. Nobody would reject God if they really knew him/her. That's why God won't punish them for not knowing.

Actually, yes there is at least one person in the world like this that I know of. I have meet him.

I meet a bishop of the LDS church who say's that he KNOWS the LDS religion is false. He continues to reject what he say's he knows is true because he fears his family will reject him.

And they likely would.

As far as your statement:
That's why God won't punish them for not knowing.

No, that is why if YOU were god YOU would not "punish" them.

If you believe this, then YOU would be a tyranical god as YOU would force people to spend eternity with you even if they would not want to spend eternity with you.

That is, assuming you did everything else just as God has done. Which of course you would not, because you are much smarter than God is.

[Is it possible?]

I want everyone to know the above atheist in the post above mine...I won't even do him the courtesy of saying his name is officially on my ignore list. YYYEEEAAHHH!!!!:D

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz

Quoting me:

>> Now, you can say the Bible describes God very well, however, you will first have to make an assumption that the Bible is true. This assumption will be based on your desire for it to be true or not; the evidence you have or haven’t seen to its truthfulness; your own personal “gullability” or lack thereof (in other words, are you a person who requires strict proof, a little bit of proof, or none at all in order to accept something); your personal experiences which would prepare you to accept that the Bible is true; and, I believe the most important reason of all, your faith in your own inner feelings and beliefs i.e., your ability to trust your own judgment. There are other factors which also affect a person’s decision to accept the Bible or not but they are too many to cover completely here. <<

You are stating the above as known fact.
Is it fact or is it your assumption?

Now this is the famous question posed by RFburnhertz. My original question to him was, "which part of the paragraph would you like explained?" or something to that effect. The REASON I said that is that the above paragraph contains SEVERAL sentences and, when asked to tell whether the "above" was fact or opinion, my first thought was, "Which part of it?"

Sentence #1:

"Now, you can say the Bible describes God very well, however, you will first have to make an assumption that the Bible is true. "


Rfburnhertz would have to answer that for sure but I think he's proven that he believes it does. There was some discussion about why a person can't "know" the Bible is true. My reply was that in order to really "know" you'd have to dig up some eyewitnesses and compare their testimonies to the recordation of events in the Bible in order to "know."

Maybe my definition of "know" differs with Rfburnhertz definition of "know." You see, I work in the legal field and, in the legal field, you cannot know something to be true unless you saw it yourself or have the opportunity to speak with someone who did. Since there is nobody alive now who did witness everything in the Bible, I will continue to stand on another FACT: you can't "know." So that would make this entire sentence a fact.


Sentence #2.

Part 1:
This assumption will be based on your desire for it to be true or not;

Part 2
the evidence you have or haven’t seen to its truthfulness;

Part 3
your own personal “gullability” or lack thereof (in other words, are you a person who requires strict proof, a little bit of proof, or none at all in order to accept something);

Part 4
your personal experiences which would prepare you to accept that the Bible is true;

Part 5
and, I believe the most important reason of all, your faith in your own inner feelings and beliefs i.e., your ability to trust your own judgment.

Parts 1 - 5 would be my own interpretation of the psychological reasons a person does or doesn't decide for something. So, if Rfburnhertz would like to differ with any Part of the above quote, he can feel free to do so. I would ,however, say that most of the above parts 1-5 are common sense. Though common sense is sometimes subjective, I believe most intelligent people can come to a consensus on what is sensible and what is not. I would also add that I made the following "qualifying" remark. To clarify, if Rfburnhertz is confused by what I mean when I say "qualifying," that means that I've put a condition of sorts on my statement. The qualifying condition was this: "There are other factors which also affect a person’s decision to accept the Bible or not but they are too many to cover completely here."

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Could there be personal experiances which would prepare you to reject the bible? Your faith in things ouside of God? Your faith in your own inner feeling. Your faith in your judgement?

Could there be other factors as well which lead you to reject the bible?"


This is Rfburnhertz thinking he's caught me in some sort of a trap. However, I openly admitted the above could most certainly have affected my decisions about my faith. Let me remind Rfburnhertz that I've not tried to implicate that it's bad to let such factors influence you, just that they do. You see, I'm not a bigot so I do not have to defend a hateful and faultly, loveless belief system by hiding behind excuses. I am more than willing to admit that these things have brought me to where I am today.


After this Rfburnhertz got very excited and thought since I had not answered his somewhat criptic question, I was just avoiding discussion of what I'd posted. I honestly wanted him to point out which part of the long paragraph he had a question about. Since then, there's been a lot of smoke screening, avoidance, and silly comments and discussions about my forehead. Anyway, it's typical behavior of a person who found something I said hit home. He obviously was insulted. Why? Is Rfburnhertz a bigot, a homophobe, a person who thinks that only a few of his special friends are loved by God? We don't really know for sure because he's managed to avoid any real and meaningful discussion on the subject.

There you go, Rfburnhertz. The ball is in your court!

[rfburnhertz]

A nice attempt wickwoman.

But I am still looking for evidence that we CANNOT KNOW that the bible is true.

This has been the question I asked of you.
You answer basicly has been do I know any eye witnesses.

That of course is not evidence.

I have not been as you claimed, attempting to trap you.

I just want an honest answer to the question I asked. Again, I do not want your personal opinion, opinion is not evidence.

You claim I must assume the bible to be true. I cannot know it to be true.

My claim is that you assume the bible is untrue.
And that you CAN know the bible is true.

I am indeed ready to present you with evidence that the bible is true.

I do not know that such evidence would convince you of anything. And it is not my job to convince you of anything.

But I am not playing the stupid game that many atheists seem to love to play. Where I must provide evidences and they present none.

As for the possiblity of my being a bigot.
I am intolerant and glad I am. But no,
I am not a bigot.

[prodigalson]

Look, just b/c you don't know the Bible is true wickwoman, doesn't mean many of us don't know it is true either b/c we do. God supernaturaly opened my eyes(and others) and basically said "This is true!", that is my eyewitness, that was all I needed. It might not be enough for you, it might not be what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I know.

Did Adam know God was real and who He was?
Did Noah?
Did Abraham?
Did David?
Did the Apostles?

Really why would anyone elses Faith be much different than the above? It is not as visual as Adams' or the Apostles' Faith was, but Noah was pretty dang sure if he is building an Ark on dry land when there was never even rain yet.

[Flake]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
But I am still looking for evidence that we CANNOT KNOW that the bible is true.


Inconsistencies. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml)

I could tell you that the car in front of us is blue. You may deny that and state it is green and ask me to prove it. I could gather a group of people together to testify the color of the car, contact the manufacturer to ask which paint they used, consult a color expert, perform scientific tests etc, and still you would deny it is blue. Why? Perhaps you are color blind.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
But I am still looking for evidence that we CANNOT KNOW that the bible is true.

This has been the question I asked of you.
You answer basicly has been do I know any eye witnesses.

I can tell you that the walls in my office are peach. Do you KNOW that they are? I do. How about you? I suppose you could claim that you had some supernatural experience where you saw the walls of my office in a dream and they were, indeed peach, and yes you KNOW that they are. But, do you really expect any intelligent person to buy that? I don't. Sorry.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
I just want an honest answer to the question I asked. Again, I do not want your personal opinion, opinion is not evidence.

What I gave you is not an opinion. And, it truly was my honest answer to your question. Are you saying that it is not a fact that you haven't dug up any of the eye witnesses to the events in the Bible and asked them whether or not the Bible is true? If you answer you have, then I would say we have nothing further to discuss because I'm crazier than you are if I think I could convince you of anything.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
My claim is that you assume the bible is untrue.
And that you CAN know the bible is true.

I would never claim that I KNOW without a doubt that the Bible is untrue. That would be unreasonable since I have no eyewitness to the fact that it ISN'T true. You see, I can make logical guesses about things for which I have no real objective proof, I can consider evidence, I can make logical assumptions, however, I cannot tell you without a shadow of a doubt that I KNOW the Bible isn't true. I've never tried to say that. If you got that impression, please excuse me for misleading you.

It would have been easier for me if I'd discovered some solid evidence years ago for the Bible's truthfullness. I know my parents would have accepted me more readily. I would fit in with my ultraconservative co-workers. However, no such proof was provided.

To the contrary, real life provided all the proof I needed to see that many of the concepts in the Bible are either fradulent or misunderstood. But, if ever the evidence is presented to the contrary, I would certainly be happy to consider it. Do you know just how frightening it is to wake up one day and realize that everything you've believed in since you were capable of reasoning is false? It's like jumping off a cliff with no parachute, just hoping there's a nice, soft pile of pillows waiting for you at the bottom.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
I am indeed ready to present you with evidence that the bible is true.

I do not know that such evidence would convince you of anything. And it is not my job to convince you of anything.


I've read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." I've spoken in tongues. I've assisted in the casting out of demons. I've witnessed to the sick and to homeless people on the street.

If you've got something better than that, then feel free to share it. Otherwise, you misunderstand me and where I'm coming from. You make assumptions that this is my first time on this merry-go-round. It's not. I've been there and done that. If you've got anything more to add to my own personal experiences, feel free to share it. Just so you know you're not dealing with someone who is "new" to these concepts.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
But I am not playing the stupid game that many atheists seem to love to play. Where I must provide evidences and they present none.

Funny, the only thing I've tried to do is to get you to back up your off hand comments similar to saying something like "that's a bunch of crap" with some real objective criticism. If I presented evidence to a judge and the opposing counsel stood up and said "you honor, that's a bunch of crap" do you think the judge would find his argument valid? My request to you has been "exactly how is it crap?" Is that unreasonable?

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
As for the possiblity of my being a bigot.
I am intolerant and glad I am. But no,
I am not a bigot.

How exactly are you intolerant? Funny you use that exact word. I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "teach tolerance." I'm so proud that I am tolerant. And you are proud that you are intolerant. Amazing how different people really are. But, I guess that's what tolerance is about.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by wickwoman
I can tell you that the walls in my office are peach. Do you KNOW that they are? I do. How about you? I suppose you could claim that you had some supernatural experience where you saw the walls of my office in a dream and they were, indeed peach, and yes you KNOW that they are. But, do you really expect any intelligent person to buy that? I don't. Sorry.

It doesn't metter if you believe us or not when we say we know the bible is true, we are just telling you what the deal is; it's on you to decide if you want to know or if you would rather rely on your own wisdom.

What I gave you is not an opinion. And, it truly was my honest answer to your question. Are you saying that it is not a fact that you haven't dug up any of the eye witnesses to the events in the Bible and asked them whether or not the Bible is true? If you answer you have, then I would say we have nothing further to discuss because I'm crazier than you are if I think I could convince you of anything.

I/we don't need to dig up eyewitness b/c God Himself has reveiled it to us. This is what you don't get, b/c if you did, you wouldn't say "You can't be sure if the Bible is true."

It would have been easier for me if I'd discovered some solid evidence years ago for the Bible's truthfullness. I know my parents would have accepted me more readily. I would fit in with my ultraconservative co-workers. However, no such proof was provided.

Honestly, it wouldn't of mattered, you would still not want to believe it b/c it goes against some of your ideologies that you wouldn't let go of. Back when Jesus was performing miracles, people still didn't believe, and they just explained His wonders away.

To the contrary, real life provided all the proof I needed to see that many of the concepts in the Bible are either fradulent or misunderstood. But, if ever the evidence is presented to the contrary, I would certainly be happy to consider it. Do you know just how frightening it is to wake up one day and realize that everything you've believed in since you were capable of reasoning is false? It's like jumping off a cliff with no parachute, just hoping there's a nice, soft pile of pillows waiting for you at the bottom.

Those false things you speak of are just things that go against your own belief system, such as homosexuality, or "good" people going to Hell. We have gone through this before so no need to do it again.

[claire]

Originally posted by prodigalson
Claire, we really can't even use examples of ying yang actions b/c when Adam and Eve were created the only thing that was wrong to do was eat from the tree that God told them not to. Every word they would of spoke would be sinless, every tone they spoke the words in would also be. Every action they could of done would of been sinless just as long as they didn't eat from that tree. Every choice would of been sinless, every action would of been sinless. Once they did eat from the tree God commanded against, sin came into the world and threw everything for a loop. Now there was sinfull rage, lust, pride, disease etc. Now I don't know if every choice Adam and Eve would of made would of been right in the sense that they could of made a wrong turn and got lost on the way back home or something like that. Maybe every action would of been correct before the fall, maybe not.

After God had finished creation there was nothing wrong with it. Everyone should be able to agree with that.

You are right...PS.....when God finished "creation" by whatever means, there was nothing "wrong with it"....but he knew how man would behave because we are also his creation....in that sense....you can say that god orchestrated man's deviation from him in favor of that which was a step away from him....so he is the author of that....In retrospect, had Adam and Eve adhered to God's commands.....we can see that man would not understand the "free will" or the consequences of his actions....so we are able to call it "perfect" because it set man on the course to have CHOICES....without choices...there is no glory....

:)

[wickwoman]

Dear Prodigalson:

Quote you:

"I/we don't need to dig up eyewitness b/c God Himself has reveiled it to us. This is what you don't get, b/c if you did, you wouldn't say "You can't be sure if the Bible is true."

Well, God has revealed to me that homosexuals are not going to hell, nor are Hindus, Buddhists, nor anyone else for that matter. As a matter of fact, God has revealed to me that there is no Hell at all, that the Bible has been severely misunderstood and applied to situations for which it was not intended.

So both of us think we KNOW. Wonder which one is right? Both - probably not. That's how I can't KNOW that I'm right and that's how you can't KNOW that you're right either. Unless, of course, you have a severe superiority complex and believe that your reasoning is superior to about 66% of the world's population. (That's the portion that isn't Christian.)

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by wickwoman
, of course, you have a severe superiority complex and believe that your reasoning is superior to about 66% of the world's population. (That's the portion that isn't Christian.)

98% of the world could tell me that the sky is green and the ocean is made up of jello, but that would not change the truth. The truth is the truth regardless of what the masses think, and since something as important as salvation has a great deal of import to everyone, everyone has a great self interest in it, and thus a great interest in perverting or destroying the truths of something like the Bible. The great thing is, after 1900 years of attack the book still stands far above and beyond anything else ever written.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by Flake
Inconsistencies. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml)

I could tell you that the car in front of us is blue. You may deny that and state it is green and ask me to prove it. I could gather a group of people together to testify the color of the car, contact the manufacturer to ask which paint they used, consult a color expert, perform scientific tests etc, and still you would deny it is blue. Why? Perhaps you are color blind.

Great observation Flake. You've pointed out a very important part of reasoning. Nobody approaches a situation without at least one of the following to influence them: personal experiences, handicaps, prejudices, opinions, strong desires, or even delusions.

When I try to conceive of what God is about. I try to remember some laws that I believe are a constant. Love is universal. Nothing of God could ever be anything less than for all and for always. God is an absolute. That means that his/her love is absolute. Absolute love is like nothing we as human beings have ever been able to conceive of.

Maybe it was you who said earlier someone had a very "human" idea of how God is. We do, we're human beings. So when I conceive of how God must be, I try to think of the highest and best that I have to offer, then I quadruple it or more. That's not even scratching the surface of how wonderful God is.



"I am the goal of life, the Lord and support of all, the inner witness, the abode of all. I am the only refuge, the one true friend; I am the beginning, the staying, and the end of creation; I am the womb and the eternal seed.

I am heat; I give and withhold the rain. I am immortality and I am death; I am what is and what is not."

-Bhagavad Gita 9:18-19

[claire]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Prodigalson:

Quote you:

"I/we don't need to dig up eyewitness b/c God Himself has reveiled it to us. This is what you don't get, b/c if you did, you wouldn't say "You can't be sure if the Bible is true."

Well, God has revealed to me that homosexuals are not going to hell, nor are Hindus, Buddhists, nor anyone else for that matter. As a matter of fact, God has revealed to me that there is no Hell at all, that the Bible has been severely misunderstood and applied to situations for which it was not intended.

So both of us think we KNOW. Wonder which one is right? Both - probably not. That's how I can't KNOW that I'm right and that's how you can't KNOW that you're right either. Unless, of course, you have a severe superiority complex and believe that your reasoning is superior to about 66% of the world's population. (That's the portion that isn't Christian.)

WW, :D

Well, God has revealed to me that our "doctrines" are not going to be the deciding factor in his grant of "eternity".....we would be pretty arrogant to presume to accede to the notion that "we" can or should "judge" what God is going to do.....

A man who lives by God's message....am I a Christian? Yes....but I know "godly" men of many faiths (and no faith)....and IM NOT GOING to second guess God...the God I know and worship (albeit as a christian) is a just and merciful God.....I am leaving that in his hands....and am going to do the very best I can to live his message.....based on my belief system.....If I get the dirt nap because of it.....then I am prepared for it....

GOD is GOD....he is the one who will decide who is one with Him and who gets the dirt nap.....

[Shaun]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Well, God has revealed to me that homosexuals are not going to hell, nor are Hindus, Buddhists, nor anyone else for that matter. As a matter of fact, God has revealed to me that there is no Hell at all, that the Bible has been severely misunderstood and applied to situations for which it was not intended.

So both of us think we KNOW. Wonder which one is right? Both - probably not. That's how I can't KNOW that I'm right and that's how you can't KNOW that you're right either. Unless, of course, you have a severe superiority complex and believe that your reasoning is superior to about 66% of the world's population. (That's the portion that isn't Christian.)
Welcome to the world of Postmodernism, where logic, reason, and thorough study take a backseat to ME!

Shaun
truth is exclusive

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Prodigalson:
So both of us think we KNOW. Wonder which one is right? Both - probably not. That's how I can't KNOW that I'm right

Bingo, this comment here makes your previous paragraph a lie and God didn't reveil homosexuals, Hindus etc are not going to hell. You made that up.

and that's how you can't KNOW that you're right either.Unless, of course, you have a severe superiority complex and believe that your reasoning is superior to about 66% of the world's population. (That's the portion that isn't Christian.)

I never said my reasoning is correct b/c in a sense that would make it my opinion, I just said God revieled His truth to me. Not because I am special, not because I am smarter but because I asked Him to. I asked Him with an open mind that what ever the truth was it was the truth whether I agreed with it or not. You on the other hand want the truth to be as you see it, that is why God hasn't revieled it to you.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by claire
WW, :D

Well, God has revealed to me that our "doctrines" are not going to be the deciding factor in his grant of "eternity".....we would be pretty arrogant to presume to accede to the notion that "we" can or should "judge" what God is going to do.....

Did He now Claire or are you just saying He did?

God has told us quite a bit of what He is going to do, it's called the Bible. Remember it is not our Doctrines or at least mine isn't, mine is the Doctrine God has decreed in His word. Christ told the 12 what was going to happen and what to preach, so in a sense Christ did give people authority on what God is going to do.

A man who lives by God's message....am I a Christian? Yes....but I know "godly" men of many faiths (and no faith)....and IM NOT GOING to second guess God...the God I know and worship (albeit as a christian) is a just and merciful God.....I am leaving that in his hands....and am going to do the very best I can to live his message.....based on my belief system.....If I get the dirt nap because of it.....then I am prepared for it....

GOD is GOD....he is the one who will decide who is one with Him and who gets the dirt nap.....

There are plenty of people in this world that live a good life that are completly indifferent to the price Jesus Christ paid. If all religions are going to God there is almost no reason for the Apostles and Paul to of been risking life and limp tp preach the Gospel. If most people go to Heaven than why was there only Noah and his family being saved(there wasn't 1 more person that was decent?).

Also, God quite plainly has showed us what He thinks of other belief systems and other religions in His word. Whether you know that His word is true is on you.

[claire]

PS....others....

I CAN"T know I am right...it would take empirical evidence to show me that...which we don't have.....

I can profess, based on belief, that I know what I know......that God is Loving, Merciful and Just...and yet, those professions carry no weight....

That he has sent his message and that those who live by it have a "chance" at eternity....

And that he wants certain things from us....and that we either follow them or not.....

That we are charged with certain "responsibilities" before we can "get there".....

It is all (as always) a matter of faith.....My faith is well placed in God and his son, Jesus Christ.....and if I am wrong, as I said before.....I'll take the dirtnap with no griping (that isn't the word I originally used...but it gets ****....LOLOL

Blessings,

claire

[freelight]

Hi WW,

You appear to take a lickin....but keep on tickin. :Princess:

We often do need to look at everything we hold dear as 'truth' and our very conceptions of God need thorough review at times.
When approacing the subject of God.....one must first come to Him as an Invisible Reality - that which is the Source of all existence/consciousness/being - the native ground wherein all that lives and dies resides in....and returns to. The Unknown.

We have sundry concepts of God and manifold interpretations.

I like to focus on the essentials -

God IS
God is Love
God is Light
God is Spirit
God is truth

When we actually unite to God in spirit....we are flowing in a divine worship that is true. This is what avails and brings the witness of the Christ into the earth. This is the true religion of Light.

* now as I have stated the above....you can imagine all the 'unspiritual' religionists raising their eyebrows, aiming their theological torpedos, getting their 'corrections' ready...and why? All because so many hold to their 'concepts' of God as truth...instead of the spirit of truth Itself. God is primal to and beyond all concept - we in the finite world of mind love to revel in our theological and philosophical parades - which can be enjoyable and even profitable at times. Other times....such frolicking has no merit as far as true spiritual import or worth is concerned.

It behooves me at times how some religionists (christians, whatever) sport their titles....yet know little of the Spirit of Christ.
Some dont bother to ask, seek and knock...going directly to Source/God. There is no other alternative to finding truth except for immersing oneself in God Himself. (and u know i'm not gender-specific) :)

Let us glory in the God of truth who is divine and eternal Love.

All the rest might be interesting conceptions, theo-ries, perspectives, commentary, etc. - but if they do not edify, or carry us into the Spirit of God.....we must question their usefulness.


shalom!


paul

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by claire
PS....others....

I CAN"T know I am right...it would take empirical evidence to show me that...which we don't have.....

But you can know, just ask God to show you. It will be a sure as fact but not a fact that others can see, it is just for you individually, and to anyone else that wants to know.

It is all (as always) a matter of faith.....My faith is well placed in God and his son, Jesus Christ.....and if I am wrong, as I said before.....I'll take the dirtnap with no griping (that isn't the word I originally used...but it gets ****....LOLOL

Yes it is a matter of Faith but as Hebrews 11:1 says Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.(NASB). It is a pretty confident faith, a faith that the recipiant is sure is true. Just like Noah; Noah was not 'thinking' he heard God call him, Noah was sure enough to build an Ark on dry land when he never even seen rain yet.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
[SNIP]

What I gave you is not an opinion. And, it truly was my honest answer to your question.

I never said that you were not being honest with me.


Are you saying that it is not a fact that you haven't dug up any of the eye witnesses to the events in the Bible and asked them whether or not the Bible is true?

I believe I do know of eyewitnesses.
I am fairly sure you know of the persons I speak of.

I am also fairly sure of how you would attempt to discount them.

If you answer you have, then I would say we have nothing further to discuss because I'm crazier than you are if I think I could convince you of anything.

I'm not sure I understand.
Are you telling me that unless you convince me to turn my back on Christianity that our conversationis fruitless?



I would never claim that I KNOW without a doubt that the Bible is untrue.

Perhpas I'm wrong here, perhaps I've misunderstood you this whole time; it does seem that you are changing your tune a bit. It did seem to me that you were very sure the bible is untrue.

I believe that is the strong indication you have given.

You see, I can make logical guesses about things for which I have no real objective proof, I can consider evidence, I can make logical assumptions, however, I cannot tell you without a shadow of a doubt that I KNOW the Bible isn't true.

All I was really wanting from you was either evidence or a simple statement like this.

If you got that impression, please excuse me for misleading you.

That is the impression I got. But I don't know that it was because you attempted to mislead me. It could have been misunderstand on my part.

It would have been easier for me if I'd discovered some solid evidence years ago for the Bible's truthfullness. I know my parents would have accepted me more readily.

Trust me, I know the feeling.
Not because I rejected the bible, but because I rejected the religion I was raised in. The religion my whole family has been in since the 1800's.

Though I was lucky in that my father and mother did not turn their backs on me. Only 90% of the rest of my family.

I've read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."
A very good book.


I've spoken in tongues. I've assisted in the casting out of demons.

I haven't done either and never expect to. But I suppose that would be for a different thread.

If you've got something better than that, then feel free to share it.

Better than everyday experiance?

Regarding simply the biblical text,
the fulfillment of prophecy would be one.

Archeology...etc.

Otherwise, you misunderstand me and where I'm coming from. You make assumptions that this is my first time on this merry-go-round.

Though there was no way for me to really know, I doubted very seriously that this was your first time on this 'merry-go-round'.


I've been there and done that. If you've got anything more to add to my own personal experiences, feel free to share it.

Do you always judge truth based on personal experiance?

Just so you know you're not dealing with someone who is "new" to these concepts.

I never thought I was.



Funny, the only thing I've tried to do is to get you to back up your off hand comments similar to saying something like "that's a bunch of crap" with some real objective criticism.

I don't think that is all you tried to do.
I could be wrong, but I think you were specificly attempting to avoid the question I asked of you.

If you weren't then, nothing personal, but you did a very bad job of trying to answer it.

My request to you has been "exactly how is it crap?" Is that unreasonable?

First, I never said that it was a bunch of crap.
As far as I'm concerned we never got to the point where I could have even thought about saying that.

My request was for evidence that we cannot know the bible is true. I think it was unreasonable of you because you were not dealing with my question of you but (in my view) attempting to redirect.

At any rate, we seem to be past that now, I hope.



How exactly are you intolerant? Funny you use that exact word. I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "teach tolerance."

I am not intolerant of everything, just as I am 100% sure that you are not tolerant of everything.

You have a bumpersticker, I have a shirt.
The messages differ a bit.

Mine is an Operation Rescue shirt which reads:
"Intolerance is a beautiful thing".

I am intolerant about many things.

My truck was stolen three times in one year (after the third time I never saw it again), I am very intolerant of theft.

I'm intolerant of the murder of the unborn.

I'm intolerant of homosexuality.

I'm intolerant of rape.

I'm intolerant of racisim.

You get the point.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
I believe I do know of eyewitnesses.
I am fairly sure you know of the persons I speak of.
I am also fairly sure of how you would attempt to discount them.

No, I'm not, not is you're saying you've spoken with them. That was the discussion we were having: "Have you spoken with them?" Otherwise, you are relying on 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand accounts which tend to be unreliable. It's like the game we used to play called "gossip." By the time the story makes it to about the 3rd person, it's gets pretty messed up. Also, the passage of time, the political agenda of those who passed the information along, etc., make the written account that the Bible has given unreliable.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Regarding simply the biblical text,
the fulfillment of prophecy would be one.
Archeology...etc.

Nostradamus' prophecies have also come true in many instances and the prophecies of many others through the ages. Edward Casey made many prophecies that came true. I am not against prophecy. I believe some of the prophets in the bible could have been legitimate, that doesn't make the whole Bible true though. What is specifically doesn't address is the modern day interpretation and interpretations of days past. No prophet can tell us now exactly how to apply what is written in the Bible to our daily lives.


Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Do you always judge truth based on personal experiance?


Originally posted by rfburnhertz
I am not intolerant of everything, just as I am 100% sure that you are not tolerant of everything.

I am mostly intolerant of intolerance if you'll excuse the akward wording. I am also extremely bothered by people who place a personal sexual preference in the category with pedophiles, murderers, and rapists. Past that, I've adopted a Wiccan motto which I believe is quite relevant here "insomuch as ye harm none, do as ye will."

[RogerB]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Past that, I've adopted a Wiccan motto which I believe is quite relevant here "insomuch as ye harm none, do as ye will."

Explains a lot.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by RogerB
Explains a lot.

You think it does but it doesn't. I'm not Wiccan. Do you have a problem with the motto? Please explain why if you do.

[freelight]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wickwoman
Past that, I've adopted a Wiccan motto which I believe is quite relevant here "insomuch as ye harm none, do as ye will."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


)============= Greetings WW, I assume you got my last post and greeting to you? I am not too familiar with the wiccan philosophy however I have had an interest in certain principles of Thelema whose law says - 'do as you will shall be the whole of the law; the law is love, love under will'. I have studied this and written on the principle of 'will' involved in this tenet and explored how it relates to the coordination/cooperation of our own wills with Gods Will. There is an extreme view in this school that says our own will is essentially divine and finding it and following it is the way of truth - the true path of the soul. I however still hold to the christian....more orthodox understanding that our own wills can be contrary to divine Will. So we must learn to unite our wills with the divine Will....til we become so unified as to walk in its Light. In the more socalled liberal and enlightened circles of the arcane and esoteric schools....the subject of will(thelema) is most profound....and our will determines so much in our lives and the directions we take/follow.


shalom,


paul

[PureX]

Originally posted by Shaun
Welcome to the world of Postmodernism, where logic, reason, and thorough study take a backseat to ME!

Shaun
truth is exclusive Actually, post-modernism is just the opposite of "me-ism". Post-modern philosophy recognizes that our expectations effect our perceptions, and therefor bias our conclusions. It's a rather humbling realization, actually, and it forces us to recognize how what we think we know is at least partially a figment of our own presumptions.

I have noticed that it tends to be the very people that are always trying to disparage post-modernism that presume they are absolutely right, and that are therefor lost in their own self-righteousness.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by Shaun
Welcome to the world of Postmodernism, where logic, reason, and thorough study take a backseat to ME!

Shaun
truth is exclusive

Shaun:

I'm not sure who your sarcasm was directed at. I will clarify that what I said was an example of what it's like when a person uses their own "personal revelation" as evidence when speaking to another person. In other words - it's fine for me to believe what has been personally revealed to me. However, I shouldn't really expect anyone else to take my word for it.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by freelight
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wickwoman
Past that, I've adopted a Wiccan motto which I believe is quite relevant here "insomuch as ye harm none, do as ye will."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is an extreme view in this school that says our own will is essentially divine and finding it and following it is the way of truth - the true path of the soul.

Dear Paul:

It's good to talk to you again. The above statement is in line with the Hindu principal of Atman which I do not fully understand. My partial understanding of Atman is that which dwells in every human being is divine truth. This Atman could be compared to the spirit of the Christ which we refer to in Unity. In Unity, we do not believe that Jesus' Christhood was exclusive to him. We believe that all "realized" human beings possess that same Spirit. It is similar to the verse in the Bible that Say: "if that same spirit which raised Christ from the dead dwell in you, it shall quicken your mortal body." We also believe that all beings will eventually reach realization.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by PureX
Actually, post-modernism is just the opposite of "me-ism". Post-modern philosophy recognizes that our expectations effect our perceptions, and therefor bias our conclusions. It's a rather humbling realization, actually, and it forces us to recognize how what we think we know is at least partially a figment of our own presumptions.

I have noticed that it tends to be the very people that are always trying to disparage post-modernism that presume they are absolutely right, and that are therefor lost in their own self-righteousness.

Thanks Purex. The original post on this thread was discussing an earlier discussion I had with you about this subject and how you got me started thinking about how people seem to avoid taking responsibility for what they have actually chosen to believe.

[PureX]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Thanks Purex. The original post on this thread was discussing an earlier discussion I had with you about this subject and how you got me started thinking about how people seem to avoid taking responsibility for what they have actually chosen to believe. A lot of people are really and truly frightened by the realization that we humans don't get to know if God exists, or what it might mean if God does exist. I have seen friends become honestly panicked by this concept. It's a pretty uncomfortable thing to suddenly become aware of the fact that everything we think we know so well is really just a blind opinion manufactured by the minds of men and may have nothing at all to do with "God".

Remember back to how you felt when that business with your neice forced you to call into question that whole Christian paradigm that you'd been raised with and were until then convinced was the "truth".

Because this is such a frightening experience for most people, many of us will do almost anything to avoid having to feel that fear. And sadly that means that many of us are actively working at avoiding the very experience we need to open up our hearts and minds so that we can begin to grow again as human beings. And instead, that fear creates an inpenatrable prison of forced ignorance behind which we can hide from reality and feel safe in the illusion of what we think we "know" about God and love and life and death.

This illusion of knowledge and the safe feeling the illusion creates for us are why some people become so nasty and blindly dogmatic toward anyone who dares disagree with what they are pretending they "know". And also sadly, the business of peddling religion is the business of selling this illusion of "knowing" to these same frightened people, and so religion becomes like a drug, and the "believers" behave like drug addicts. The more dependant they become on their illusion of "knowing God", the more frightened they become (and the more violently they will react) by the idea that what they think they "know" about God and God's will is an idea of their own making and of their own choosing.

[wickwoman]

Dear Purex:

Yes, I remember that fear well. In the not so distant past, I've even found myself with a pounding heart just for reading TOL posts directed at me. Something causes me to forge ahead regardless. Just stubborn, I guess. I haven't made it to the position you seem to be in, that is, so comfortable with a state of not knowing. There seems to still be an answer I must find and I wont give up until I solve this mystery!

Anyway, I wanted you to know how often I think of things you've said and how much growth I've experienced as a result.

[PureX]

Why, thank ye, ma'am.

It's nice to hear after the insults I've been getting on the "This Is What I Have To Work With" thread. hehe

[attention]

Originally posted by wickwoman
A discussion a week or more ago with Purex got me thinking along these lines. He said something to the effect that what we think of God is really an extension of our own psyche. This is a very general excerpt from the discussion which I hope he doesn’t mind I repeat but it bears further discussion.

I will make a general assumption here that none of us has ever met God personally. Based on that assumption I will also agree with Purex’s statement above. What we think about God is truly a figment of our imagination. This isn’t to say that God doesn’t exist, however, we don’t REALLY KNOW what or who he/she is.


This happens to be the case indeed. And we can even state more as that, because based on reason (our own reason) it would be the case that for any consciouss form of being, it is required that one can distinguish oneself from that what is outside of oneself.
A hypothetical being however that is to be defined as the totality of things that exist, can not state it's own existence, since there is nothing that exists relative to that existence, it can not distinguish between self and not-self, since it is by definition everything that exists.
Any concrete form of a consciouss being would require there to be an objective world outside, apart from and independend of it's own consciousness, that could form the basis on which itself could exist in subjective form. This would mean that 'God' could at most be a finite part of the world in total (the infinity of being). But that would also necessarily mean that 'God' could not be omnipotent and omnisient, and therefore mismatches the definition of 'God'.

[rfburnhertz]

Man...
I have to start all over. I was almost done with my response to you, and I acidently closed my browser. Oh well.

Originally posted by wickwoman
No, I'm not, not is you're saying you've spoken with them. That was the discussion we were having: "Have you spoken with them?"

Of course we both know that this is a strawman.
We both know full well that all eye witnesses to the actual events have long since died.

Please, I once again must ask that you stop playing games. Just be straight and get to the point next time.


Otherwise, you are relying on 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand accounts which tend to be unreliable.

Actually, the accounts are 2nd hand only.

I was not there, so I haven't a first hand personal account.

Those whose testimony I look to did however experiance these events first hand.

The then recorded these experiances.

Nostradamus' prophecies have also come true in many instances and the prophecies of many others through the ages. Edward Casey made many prophecies that came true.

Many of the prediction of Jean Dixon also came true, but of course her % was not 100%.

Nostradamus was of course not 100% and most of his wrttings were very cryptic.

I have read a bit about (but not from) Edward Casey, but I know next to nothing about this person.

The prophecies concerning Christ for example were very specific and fulfilled down to the very last detail.

What is specifically doesn't address is the modern day interpretation and interpretations of days past. No prophet can tell us now exactly how to apply what is written in the Bible to our daily lives.

If you don't mind, give me a better understanding of what you mean here.

For the record, I don't believe there are any prophets in this modern world. You and I may define prophet in a different way.


I am mostly intolerant of intolerance if you'll excuse the akward wording.

Cute.
But, is there nothing (other than intolerance) that you are not tolerant of?

You are perfectly accepting of all things?

And how is it you came by your mode of determining what is worthy of your tolerance and what is not?

I am also extremely bothered by people who place a personal sexual preference in the category with pedophiles, murderers, and rapists.

If you are implying that I did so, you are wrong (other than in the fact that yes I believe all to be sin). My point was that I am intolerant of all. Not that I believe all weigh out in an equal sense.

I believe for instance that abortion (of which I am intolerant) is much worse than auto theft (of which I am also intolerant).


Past that, I've adopted a Wiccan motto which I believe is quite relevant here "insomuch as ye harm none, do as ye will."

Sin harms everyone.

I asked a question of you in my last post. You quoted the question in your response back to me, but wrote nothing.

So I am guessing you had a response but something strange happend (like my closing my browser) and there was no response.

So, I am asking again.


Do you always judge truth based on personal experiance?

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by PureX
Why, thank ye, ma'am.

It's nice to hear after the insults I've been getting on the "This Is What I Have To Work With" thread. hehe

Stop you two....
Purex, wiccan...
your going to make me cry.

Please,
be honest would you?

There are few on this board who have not been insulting and who have not insulted.

Are we to believe that you are innocent of flinging insults?

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by attention
Any concrete form of a consciouss being would require there to be an objective world outside, apart from and independend of it's own consciousness, that could form the basis on which itself could exist in subjective form. This would mean that 'God' could at most be a finite part of the world in total (the infinity of being). But that would also necessarily mean that 'God' could not be omnipotent and omnisient, and therefore mismatches the definition of 'God'.

That's an interesting point. I've never considered this before. I often struggle with the idea of God being a real person. I want him/her to be. "The sum of all existence" seems so impersonal, but I don't think it really is, it's just something I can't wrap my mind around.

[wickwoman]

Dear RfBurnhertz:

I've made it abundantly clear that I base what I know as everyone does partly on personal experience. I also pointed out that actual proof is required as well. As for your supposed 2nd hand accounts, do you realize how many scribes, handlers, church officials, interperters, linguists, etc., have had a hand in your stories which you put so much faith in?

As I was pointing out about prophets, a true prophet can foretell an event to come. People who rely on the Bible often use it as a guide for their lives. Prophecy has no bearing on the use of the bible in a person's every day life. Prophets do not tell us if these rules and regulations and the way in which they've been interpreted are being used in context for which they were intended. As to the accuracy of Biblical prophecy I would point out, that last time I checked, no one made me get the numbers 666 tatooed on my forehead, and I haven't seen Jesus coming down in a cloud to rescue all the "saints" so there are still some unfulfilled prophecies floating around. You can of course say they will be soon but my grandmother said that for her entire life and she's dead now. There was a sign on the interstate highway near where I live that said: "Jesus is coming immediately." That sign is now about 6 years old.

[attention]

Originally posted by wickwoman
That's an interesting point. I've never considered this before. I often struggle with the idea of God being a real person. I want him/her to be. "The sum of all existence" seems so impersonal, but I don't think it really is, it's just something I can't wrap my mind around.

Well, the world can be said to exist in two seperate forms.

It exists in subjective form in the form of human consciousness.
It exists in objective form in the form of matter&motion (energy, etc).

To explain why consciousness itself exists, we must base that on the existence in primary instance of an objective material world. Without there being a material world first, that exists objectively, there can not be something subjective. There can not be consciouss, without there is something to be conscious of. There can not be self awareness or self consciousness or reference to oneself, if there is no distinction between self and not self.
And further we know that consciouss is a proces that must be based on material processes. The brain uses energy, and any form of consciouss behaviour can be shown to arise out of actions within the neuarl networks of our brain.


Our consciouss awareness about the world, has been formed by .... matter. So in figurative speach, matter is the 'creator' of consciousness. Science can add to this that this 'creation' required the development of the anorganic world, which by itself is an infinite history, in which matter transformed eternally, and at one point formed and shaped an expanding spacetime bubble, which we call the Big Bang, that lead to the formation of all know material forms, galaxies, stars, solar systems, and in which more simple forms of matter (eg Hydrogen) shaped into all the elements through star evolution, which on earth and also elsewhere could go into complex chemical binding, forming the basis for the emergece of organic life, which started presumably with the formation of self reproducing macro molecules, that grew to more complex forms, DNA, and then later one celled organisms, and then later complex organisms with more cells, etc, to finally the human species emerged out of a long evolutiionary process. Consciousness ultimately bases itself on the property of matter at all scales and in all forms, of self-interaction.
So, matter is in figurative speech the 'real' God, althoug it is infinite and eternal and 'onmipotent', matter does not have any of the properties religion attributes to it, which would make it as something personal.
Matter itself is not personal and can not be consciouss, but the fact that matter exists, and so could form our selves, is a fact which is of course personal to us. It has meaning to us, it shows intend and purpose to us, because we are the beings that have reason, consciousness, meaning, intend and purpose.

Through consciousness in human form, the material world can be aware and consciouss of itself. God itself, just exists as a concept within our mind, that caused us to be aware of this immense complex infinite eternal material world. God does not exist outside of that, cause everything that is outside, apart and independend of our consciousness, is matter & motion (energy, etc) which is the objective and primary substance that constitutes, forms and shapes the world.

[PureX]

People used to believe that magnets were the evidence of magical powers.

If it's true that some people are able to predict some future events, I see no reason that we should automatically assume them to be "divine" somehow. It's much more likely that they are simply like the magnets were to people in the past - a natural phenomena that we can't yet explain. And that's IF they exist at all. Most examples of "prophesy" I am aware of are just the wishfull interpretations of vague statements that prove nothing.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by PureX
People used to believe that magnets were the evidence of magical powers.

If it's true that some people are able to predict some future events, I see no reason that we should automatically assume them to be "divine" somehow. It's much more likely that they are simply like the magnets were to people in the past - a natural phenomena that we can't yet explain. And that's IF they exist at all. Most examples of "prophesy" I am aware of are just the wishfull interpretations of vague statements that prove nothing.

I've often thought of what is popularly called ESP as a sense that we've not yet discovered, therefore, not extra-sensory at all. It could be that those who can predict future events are able to sense some signal that thought or intention or potential releases prior to its happening. Or, it could be that people who possess these abilities are just so highly intelligent that they are able to perceive or predict so much more than a normal person is capable of doing with the same senses.

[philosophizer]

I find it funny that a thread entitled "stop making excuses" doesn't.

[attention]

Anyone can predict the future.

Take a ball, 1 meter above the ground, without any other interference. Drop it. The prediction is: it falls to the ground.
If the ball is solid and dense enough, and you know your gravitational laws, you can even approx. predict how much time it costs for the ball to hit the ground.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by attention
Anyone can predict the future.

Take a ball, 1 meter above the ground, without any other interference. Drop it. The prediction is: it falls to the ground.
If the ball is solid and dense enough, and you know your gravitational laws, you can even approx. predict how much time it costs for the ball to hit the ground.

If there is no wind resistence or anything like that, a feather and a bowling ball will drop at the same speed. So?

[attention]

Originally posted by prodigalson
If there is no wind resistence or anything like that, a feather and a bowling ball will drop at the same speed. So?

The previous discussions argued wether being able to predict the future would be an abnormal phenomena.

The example I gave, shows that an event which has not yet happened, the ball hitting the ground, is a predictable event, so that we can predict the future.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by attention
The previous discussions argued wether being able to predict the future would be an abnormal phenomena.

The example I gave, shows that an event which has not yet happened, the ball hitting the ground, is a predictable event, so that we can predict the future.

Obviously, your example is not what they were talking about regarding "Predicting the future". They were talking years and decades.

[freelight]

Originally posted by philosophizer
I find it funny that a thread entitled "stop making excuses" doesn't.


)=============Hi philo and all,........Bravo quest-ion! Uh,.....what was the point of this thread again?

:juggle:

Things that make u go 'hmmmmmmm' :think:


paul

[attention]

Originally posted by prodigalson
Obviously, your example is not what they were talking about regarding "Predicting the future". They were talking years and decades.

The principle however is the same, and we can very precisely predict certain astronomical features, like comets, eclipses, etc.
Of course these are examples of "simple" systems with not too much free parameters, but an intelligent mind, knowing the facts and knowing the laws that describe the behaviour of certain feautures, obviously can predict to some extend certain phenomena.

[Aimiel]

Finite mind, trying to understand the Infinite Master of The Universe will never accomplish his goal. The Lord reveals Himself via His Spirit. The mind is unfruitful. I have stood in His Presence. I can barely recall (with my mind) what that seemed like, and what occurred. The things He wanted to accomplish in me were all completed, and His Word ALWAYS prospers in the things He sends It to accomplish. Our study needs to be of Him, and our approach needs to be bold, for The Lord is A Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. We need to be diligent, by first accepting His Word, all of it; and then we need to approach Him, as He instructed. When we do, we receive His Revelation for our lives, as He wills. We are merely the vessels, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life. Our understanding is next to nothing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags next to His Righteousness. He is Holy.

We need to be about Our Father's business, which is spreading The Gospel. Our fulfillment of His Words, which were spoken over our lives before the foundation of the earth, is His doing. He will accomplish His Will. We are His people, and being in His Presence is the best thing we can experience in this life or in the next.

[attention]

Originally posted by Aimiel
Finite mind, trying to understand the Infinite Master of The Universe will never accomplish his goal. The Lord reveals Himself via His Spirit. The mind is unfruitful. I have stood in His Presence. I can barely recall (with my mind) what that seemed like, and what occurred. The things He wanted to accomplish in me were all completed, and His Word ALWAYS prospers in the things He sends It to accomplish. Our study needs to be of Him, and our approach needs to be bold, for The Lord is A Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. We need to be diligent, by first accepting His Word, all of it; and then we need to approach Him, as He instructed. When we do, we receive His Revelation for our lives, as He wills. We are merely the vessels, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life. Our understanding is next to nothing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags next to His Righteousness. He is Holy.

We need to be about Our Father's business, which is spreading The Gospel. Our fulfillment of His Words, which were spoken over our lives before the foundation of the earth, is His doing. He will accomplish His Will. We are His people, and being in His Presence is the best thing we can experience in this life or in the next.

I am sure your intentions are good, in speading the Gospel, but what would it change to the real problems of the world today.
Would it help stop wars, killings, suppresion, lack or shortages on food, means of living, healtcare, etc?

Or is it only good to "set one's soul" free, which is rather egocentric goal.

What good will spreading the Gospel do for the real problems humanity faces?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Aimiel
Finite mind, trying to understand the Infinite Master of The Universe will never accomplish his goal. The Lord reveals Himself via His Spirit. The mind is unfruitful. I have stood in His Presence. I can barely recall (with my mind) what that seemed like, and what occurred. The things He wanted to accomplish in me were all completed, and His Word ALWAYS prospers in the things He sends It to accomplish. Our study needs to be of Him, and our approach needs to be bold, for The Lord is A Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. We need to be diligent, by first accepting His Word, all of it; and then we need to approach Him, as He instructed. When we do, we receive His Revelation for our lives, as He wills. We are merely the vessels, He is The Way, The Truth and The Life. Our understanding is next to nothing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags next to His Righteousness. He is Holy.

We need to be about Our Father's business, which is spreading The Gospel. Our fulfillment of His Words, which were spoken over our lives before the foundation of the earth, is His doing. He will accomplish His Will. We are His people, and being in His Presence is the best thing we can experience in this life or in the next. I appreciate your sincerity, but why do you assume that your experience is universal, or even that it should be? I also have had such an experience, but why should I then presume that the persuit of this experience, or the way I intyerpret it, is then automatically the reason all my fellow humans exist, and the only way they should interpret it?

I can't understand why so many folks can't seem to grasp the idea that their own lives are not the measure of all human life on Earth. The instant someone thinks they have found a reason or purpose for themselves, they immediately turn around and insist that this purpose applies to everyone. What's so hard about understanding that we are NOT ALL THE SAME, and that we are not SUPPOSED TO BE the same?

[prodigalson]

I am sure your intentions are good, in speading the Gospel, but what would it change to the real problems of the world today.Would it help stop wars, killings, suppresion, lack or shortages on food, means of living, healtcare, etc?

Or is it only good to "set one's soul" free, which is rather egocentric goal.

What good will spreading the Gospel do for the real problems humanity faces?

Actually if everyone were being saved than yes it would help all of those problems. The Gospel is not intended to bring peace on earth just peace with sinful man to a holy God.

"Set one's soul free" is all that matters actually. You know, what is it for a man to gain the whole world yet forfeit his soul? I would rather be saved and live in a dumpster than have everything I want and go to Hell. Yuo know what I'm sayin.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by prodigalson
"Set one's soul free" is all that matters actually. You know, what is it for a man to gain the whole world yet forfeit his soul? I would rather be saved and live in a dumpster than have everything I want and go to Hell. Yuo know what I'm sayin.

I know you truly believe that, however, to me it looks like an excuse to put your head in the sand. There are actual people out there who will not accept Christianity EVER. They will be Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists or whatever to the best of their ability. They will receive spiritual revelation as well. They will, for the most part, not focus as Christians do on how everyone else is going to hell. They don't believe in Hell. They will put energy into their lives and become better people because they aren't caught up in some perverted dogma which says you can't ever be good. You can.

And these people will try to be better people while many Christians will exclude themselves from the rest of the world because they think they're already better just because they've joined the Jesus club. These Christians will stand back and condemn and criticize. In the end, these people will only make the world more separate and war torn. While those of us who believe the unity and understanding of all human beings is the ultimate goal will continue to scream down that vacuum "we're all the same!"

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by wickwoman
I know you truly believe that, however, to me it looks like an excuse to put your head in the sand. There are actual people out there who will not accept Christianity EVER.

That is why I never said the Gospel was to bring peace on earth, b/c it isn't. I have no idea how you get me sticking my head in the sand, I believe in a much harsher world than you do.

And these people will try to be better people while many Christians will exclude themselves from the rest of the world because they think they're already better just because they've joined the Jesus club.

Yeah, that's what we're doing.

These Christians will stand back and condemn and criticize. In the end, these people will only make the world more separate and war torn.

Because we will not agree with what everyone says? When I see sin, I am not going to walk up and get in someones face and yell "YOU SINNER!", but if you think I am going not say something if the topic of sin comes up than you are hugely mistaken.

While those of us who believe the unity and understanding of all human beings is the ultimate goal will continue to scream down that vacuum "we're all the same!"

We are all the same, we are all sinners in need of a Savior, but that's about it. All of beliefs are not the same; it seems that it's you who is sticking their head in the ground.

Since when did I EVER state that we as christians should not strive for Christlikeness? Where? Where have I EVER said I was better than ANYONE? As I have said before, nobody deserves Hell more than me, but I am not going to sit back and not speak the truth.

Like Jesus said, "What is it for a man to gain the whole world yet forfiet his soul". That saying pretty much goes against the "we all get to heaven" speach. Unless you want to discard that statement by Christ b/c it doesn't go with your belief system.

[wickwoman]

Dear Prodigalson:

You never said we shouldn't strive for Chrislikeness to my knowledge. However, a statement such as "all that matters is the eternal soul" smacks of the attitude I've found in many Christians - possibly not you. The idea is, grace did it all, we don't have to do anything except accept christ and evangelize.

Meanwhile, the world is vastly overpopulated and Christians argue against abortion and against voluntary suicide of the terminally ill; against homosexuality and other personal freedoms; they ignore issues such as lack of education in 3rd world countries unless its coupled with evangelization that strips a region of its traditional spiritual values; they support politicians who want to drill for oil in the most sacred natural environment that can be found in our 50 states, etc. That's a vast overgeneralization I know so please excuse me if you don't necessarily fit into all or any of those categories.

The eternal soul is not all that matters. Because, all these things that are happening on this earth are as important and relevant as any thing you can dream up behind a pulpit. More importantly, it is the sum of all these things that contributes to the evolution of that very soul we hold so sacred. It is the interaction with those of different faiths that have been condemned by Christians so often that causes that soul to progress and achieve higher and higher spiritual consciousness.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Prodigalson:

You never said we shouldn't strive for Chrislikeness to my knowledge. However, a statement such as "all that matters is the eternal soul" smacks of the attitude I've found in many Christians - possibly not you. The idea is, grace did it all, we don't have to do anything except accept christ and evangelize.

Striving for Christlikeness is always implied. Also, I was talking about the bottom line, the bottom line is eternity is the only thing that matters, b/c well, it's eternity.

Meanwhile, the world is vastly overpopulated and Christians argue against abortion and against voluntary suicide of the terminally ill; against homosexuality and other personal freedoms; they ignore issues such as lack of education in 3rd world countries unless its coupled with evangelization that strips a region of its traditional spiritual values; they support politicians who want to drill for oil in the most sacred natural environment that can be found in our 50 states, etc. That's a vast overgeneralization I know so please excuse me if you don't necessarily fit into all or any of those categories.

People are irresponsable and are not having safe sex, I am suppsoed to lower my standard to make them feel better and take away their resposibilty? I don't think so.

Now we are suppsoed to take care of the education system in a 3rd world country? Your kidding right? How thin do you want people to stretch? You stretch a person too thin, nothing will get done.

We need to get oil somehow, oil is one of the biggest needs a country will have.

The eternal soul is not all that matters.

How can you even say this? The eternal soul is all that matters because it is eternal. 70 years compared to 70 billion years? It's safe to say the eternal soul is all that matters.

Because, all these things that are happening on this earth are as important and relevant as any thing you can dream up behind a pulpit. More importantly, it is the sum of all these things that contributes to the evolution of that very soul we hold so sacred. It is the interaction with those of different faiths that have been condemned by Christians so often that causes that soul to progress and achieve higher and higher spiritual consciousness.

Wrong, nothing on earth is more important or more relivant than how a person spends eternity. Nothing.

[jimbohere4u]

Very interesting!

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by jimbohere4u
Very interesting!

Is it?

[attention]

Originally posted by prodigalson
Actually if everyone were being saved than yes it would help all of those problems. The Gospel is not intended to bring peace on earth just peace with sinful man to a holy God.

"Set one's soul free" is all that matters actually. You know, what is it for a man to gain the whole world yet forfeit his soul? I would rather be saved and live in a dumpster than have everything I want and go to Hell. Yuo know what I'm sayin.

Yeah. Well explain that to the victims of aids, suppression, hunger, starvation, war, etc. "It doesn't matter that you suffer, as long as your 'soul' is safe".

I care more about helping actual and real people with actual and real needs, then "saving their souls"..

If you understand what I mean

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by attention
Yeah. Well explain that to the victims of aids, suppression, hunger, starvation, war, etc. "It doesn't matter that you suffer, as long as your 'soul' is safe".

I care more about helping actual and real people with actual and real needs, then "saving their souls"..

If you understand what I mean

That is the difference between an unbeliever and a believer, we see the bigger picuture. Trust me, a persons soul is a very real and actual need, and it needs to be saved. Like I have said "What is it for a man to gain the whole world and yet forfiet his soul?" You know what I mean?

[Eliana]

Originally posted by wickwoman
I know you truly believe that, however, to me it looks like an excuse to put your head in the sand. There are actual people out there who will not accept Christianity EVER. They will be Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists or whatever to the best of their ability. They will receive spiritual revelation as well. They will, for the most part, not focus as Christians do on how everyone else is going to hell. They don't believe in Hell. They will put energy into their lives and become better people because they aren't caught up in some perverted dogma which says you can't ever be good. You can.

And these people will try to be better people while many Christians will exclude themselves from the rest of the world because they think they're already better just because they've joined the Jesus club. These Christians will stand back and condemn and criticize. In the end, these people will only make the world more separate and war torn. While those of us who believe the unity and understanding of all human beings is the ultimate goal will continue to scream down that vacuum "we're all the same!"

I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy Wickwoman. :)

I'm jewish and for one, we live in the here and now and we don't focus on rewards to attain entry to heaven. The explainations and existence of the afterlife is not stated explicitly in the Torah itself, and because of that, as human beings we have to focus on our task in this world.

I believe in the oneness of mankind and that we all have a piece of God inside of us regardless of religious beliefs. Unity and one message of God is what will bring us towards peace in this lifetime. People who are unwilling to recognize the similar aspects of good in each religion and each individual will continue to tear us all apart.

:)

[attention]

Originally posted by prodigalson
That is the difference between an unbeliever and a believer, we see the bigger picuture. Trust me, a persons soul is a very real and actual need, and it needs to be saved. Like I have said "What is it for a man to gain the whole world and yet forfiet his soul?" You know what I mean?

We are not talking here about "winning the whole world" I was talking here about simple SURVIVING in this world. There is no other world, so we need to be saved in this world.

And don't come with "we see a broader picture" I already got the biggest picture there is.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by Eliana
I'm jewish and for one, we live in the here and now and we don't focus on rewards to attain entry to heaven. The explainations and existence of the afterlife is not stated explicitly in the Torah itself, and because of that, as human beings we have to focus on our task in this world.
:)

I once asked Jewish friend of mine how Judaism keeps its followers in line. He responded: "it's just what good Jewish boys do." It's like morality for the sake of morality, no other purpose. I really like that. It's pure.

[attention]

Originally posted by wickwoman
There are actual people out there who will not accept Christianity EVER. They will be Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists or whatever to the best of their ability

Don't forget to mention Philosophical Materialist...!!

hehe

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by attention
We are not talking here about "winning the whole world" I was talking here about simple SURVIVING in this world. There is no other world, so we need to be saved in this world.

Never said we are winning the whole world. I am not saying we shouldn't help people either, I am saying the bottom line is that a persons soul is what really matters.

And don't come with "we see a broader picture" I already got the biggest picture there is.

You do? Is there a God in it? Are you taking account eternity? If not you are missing the climatic ending.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by Eliana
I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy Wickwoman. :)

I'm jewish and for one, we live in the here and now and we don't focus on rewards to attain entry to heaven. The explainations and existence of the afterlife is not stated explicitly in the Torah itself, and because of that, as human beings we have to focus on our task in this world.

I am not focus on gaining rewards to attain Heaven, I can't earn entry to Heaven but I can tell people how to get in. The Torah doesn't explicity state about the existance of the after life? Really?

[attention]

<<<
Attention:
"We are not talking here about "winning the whole world" I was talking here about simple SURVIVING in this world. There is no other world, so we need to be saved in this world."

Prodigalson:"
Never said we are winning the whole world. I am not saying we shouldn't help people either, I am saying the bottom line is that a persons soul is what really matters."
>>>

It seems that the "soul" is doing better when not hungry, oppressed, sick, etc., so this comes down to the same thing then.

<<<
Attention:
"And don't come with "we see a broader picture" I already got the biggest picture there is."

Prodigalson:
"You do? Is there a God in it? Are you taking account eternity? If not you are missing the climatic ending. "
>>>

Matter, I'm affraid, has no "personality", neither a viewpoint of itself, and misses also consciousness. Which is NOT the same as saying that matter does not matter to us, since without matter, neither we would exist.

Matter is indeed eternal, since it is the substance of which everything is composed, can't be destroyed or created, and is infinite.

Matter is not only conserved in a quantitaive way but also in a qualitative way.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by attention
Matter is indeed eternal, since it is the substance of which everything is composed, can't be destroyed or created, and is infinite.
Wrong. See http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/ or http://www.sciforums.com/archive/33/2002/07/1/8406 For more details. When matter collides with antimatter, both are destroyed into radiation, which is energy.

Matter is not only conserved in a quantitaive way but also in a qualitative way.
Explain in detail. Matter is constant with the amount of energy in the universe, as described by e=mc^2.

[attention]

Originally posted by Shaun
Wrong. See http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/ or http://www.sciforums.com/archive/33/2002/07/1/8406 For more details. When matter collides with antimatter, both are destroyed into radiation, which is energy.


Explain in detail. Matter is constant with the amount of energy in the universe, as described by e=mc^2.

Shaun,

We are talking different 'matters' here.

Physics defines matter different then Philosophy (Materialism) does.

In Philosophical Materials: Matter is denoting the category of thought, that is the substance or entity that exists outside, apart and independend from the mind (consciousness) and is projected in the brain through our sensory perceptions.

In Physcis: Matter is/are particles that have mass (electron, proton, neutron, quarks, etc)

So the phil. term matter denotes the phys. term matter, but also radiation, energy, fields, gravitation, particles, neutrino's, human organism, star, galaxy, etc.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by attention
In Philosophical Materials: Matter is denoting the category of thought, that is the substance or entity that exists outside, apart and independend from the mind (consciousness) and is projected in the brain through our sensory perceptions.

So then, define the perception of that matter. Why is it necessary to be different, and what is the purpose for the schism of science and philosopy?

[attention]

Originally posted by Shaun
So then, define the perception of that matter. Why is it necessary to be different, and what is the purpose for the schism of science and philosopy?

There is no real 'schism' between materialis and physics, just that they happen to define the same term in different ways, and throughoiut different disciplines of thought and science, this happens ofter. (How many different definitions of God are there, for example?)

Materialism is a philosophical point of view, while science deals with that can be evidenced by investigation and observation.

Physiscs for example explains that mass and energy are conserved quantities. Materialism states that matter is uncreatable and undestroyable. So this is the same notion about reality.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
I've made it abundantly clear that I base what I know as everyone does partly on personal experience.

I suppose.
You seem to point to personal experiance very often. I simply wanted to know how heavily you rely upon it as a measurment of truth.


I also pointed out that actual proof is required as well.

As I have pointed out,
proof is required for your claims as well.

As for your supposed 2nd hand accounts, do you realize how many scribes, handlers, church officials, interperters, linguists, etc., have had a hand in your stories which you put so much faith in?

I do indeed realize how many scribes, hanlders, etc... have been involved.

This discredits the text how?

As I was pointing out about prophets, a true prophet can foretell an event to come. People who rely on the Bible often use it as a guide for their lives. Prophecy has no bearing on the use of the bible in a person's every day life.

Biblical prophecy has a great bearing in our lives.

Perhaps not your in that you ignore biblical teaching.

But in mine in has a great bearing in that the fulfilment of biblical prophecy proves that God is who He say's He is. It teaches me about His character. It teaches me that He is reliable. It teaches me that He and His Word love us and can be trusted 100%.

Prophets do not tell us if these rules and regulations and the way in which they've been interpreted are being used in context for which they were intended.

I believe I know what you mean. But to be sure I would ask that you go into a bit more detail as tho your thought here please.

As to the accuracy of Biblical prophecy I would point out, that last time I checked, no one made me get the numbers 666 tatooed on my forehead, and I haven't seen Jesus coming down in a cloud to rescue all the "saints" so there are still some unfulfilled prophecies floating around.

And your point?
The fact that there are unfulfilled prophecies means what? I believe it means nothing more than not all things have come to pass yet.

I never noticed that there was an experation date on any prophecy in the bible.


You can of course say they will be soon but my grandmother said that for her entire life and she's dead now.

There was a sign on the interstate highway near where I live that said: "Jesus is coming immediately." That sign is now about 6 years old.

We as Christians live as though Christ may return at any moment.

Christ made it clear that no one knew when He would return.

All Christians know that it could happen before I hit the next key, or it could be one thousand plus years from now.

The fact that Christ did not return during your grandmothers lifetime in noway demonstrates that Christ will not return.

As for your highway sign.
If they really meant "immediately" do you think they would have even bothered to have put the sign up?

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Eliana
I'm jewish and for one, we live in the here and now and we don't focus on rewards to attain entry to heaven.

If, your comment about 'rewards to attain entry to heaven' was meant to imply that this is a teaching of Christianity; then you might as well remove yourself from any conversation critical of Christianity or Christians as you clearly haven't a working understanding of Christianity.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Meanwhile, the world is vastly overpopulated

No it isn't. That's just another lie you've swallowed. The human population of the entire world can fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida.

[wickwoman]

Dear Rfburnhertz:

Prophecies that have not been fulfilled must also be entered into your averages and percentages. For example, if there were 10 and 8 were fulfilled that means it's not 100% accurate. To say, "oh that just hasn't happened yet," well, after the passage of a couple aeons, that get's a little stale.

Re the prophecies proving the Bible. I'm sorry I've not stated this well, apparently, as you are still foggy on what I'm trying to say. Let me try again. The Bible stories are not just about the actual events that happened here on earth. Science has dug up evidence that there was a flood, possibly some other events that did actually happen. However, to make a claim that Moses did actually speak with God personally and receive the 10 commandments (and I don't necessarily doubt that he did) is beyond the boundaries of science and reason. It will never happen.

So, prophecy foretold that Jesus would be born in the place at the time he did, possibly. Fine. I believe Jesus was born. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not what Jesus said was true and applicable to the time I'm living in right now. Though I follow the teachings of Jesus, it's not because some prophet foretold of his life and death accurately. The reason I follow the teachings of Jesus is because they are universal, logical - they make sense - they are coherent with other philosophies that are universal - love, understanding, etc.

Dear One Eyed Jack:

Re: the world's population fitting into Jacksonville. That's nice, does Jacksonville have the jobs, homes, and food for all these people. Can Jacksonville educate all the children of the world? I lived there once and I don't recall the resources being quite that vast. You've pointed out an important philosophy of some fundamentalists. They seemed to be quite devoted to quantity of life - no abortion, no suicide of the terminally ill, have 4 kids, etc., but when it comes to supporting social policies which help provide people with quality of life - education, healthcare, jobs, equality, they loose interest.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by wickwoman
However, to make a claim that Abraham did actually speak with God personally and receive the 10 commandments (and I don't necessarily doubt that he did) is beyond the boundaries of science and reason.

Uh... God gave the 10 commandments to Moses, not Abraham. For someone who claims to be a former Christian, you sure are ignorant of the Bible.

Dear One Eyed Jack:

Re: the world's population fitting into Jacksonville. That's nice, does Jacksonville have the jobs, homes, and food for all these people.

No, but since everybody in the world doesn't live there, it doesn't have to. There is more than enough of all that to go around when you take the whole planet into consideration. The point I was making is that the world isn't nearly as overpopulated as you think it is.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Uh... God gave the 10 commandments to Moses, not Abraham.


Sorry about that. I started out to say something about Abraham and then thought the example of Moses with the 10 commandments would be more appropriate but forgot to change the name.


Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No, but since everybody in the world doesn't live there, it doesn't have to. There is more than enough of all that to go around when you take the whole planet into consideration. The point I was making is that the world isn't nearly as overpopulated as you think it is.

Yes, but everybody in the world is in the world and the world does have to support them and it can't, it doesn't, it won't. Also, the animals that live here have to have somewhere to live. If we continue to destroy their homes and put up ours, we will have to start killing off more animals. We spill oil in Alaska. Did you know that only about 2% of the species harmed during the Valdese disaster years ago have actually been able to return to their pre-spill status? That's what people do to the place they live in and, the more people there are, the more it happens.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Yes, but everybody in the world is in the world and the world does have to support them and it can't

Yes it can. The world isn't overpopulated. That's just another myth spread by the liberals and the enviro-wackos.

[servent101]

The world is overpopulated, I am lucky I live in a country that still has room enough to let the bears, cougars, moose, deer run wild. In a lot of countries these animals only live in zoos. Sure we may be able to feed four times the population at current food production levels, but is the intent solely to make sure we survive - what about all of God's other creatures and their quality of life?

An interesting point though - Why are we overpopulated? Simply because the human race wants to have sex sex and more sex. We want sex, not children so we have so many unwanted children - not unwanted by God, but unwanted by their own parents. This is a reason as well why things are so bad. If we were able to control our minds - to realize what is a lie from the devil - (sex is happiness) we would be more able to have a world for all of God's creatures to live in happily. But how does corporate America sell their products? Buy this and thousands of women will have sex with you. It is a merry go round from hell.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[PureX]

Originally posted by servent101 Why are we overpopulated? Simply because the human race wants to have sex sex and more sex. We want sex, not children so we have so many unwanted children - not unwanted by God, but unwanted by their own parents. This is a reason as well why things are so bad.Sex, like many other things in life, is not the problem in itself. Irresponsibility is the problem. When we allow our desire for something to overwhelm the natural responsibilities that come with that which we desire, we end up abusing it.

It's puzzling that we human beings can build machines that are so complex they can take us to other planets yet we can't seem to do something so elemental as govern our own numbers or fairly distribute and conserve our natural resources. One would have thought that these two elemental ideas regarding our own survival and well-being would have long since been enacted.

We are a bizarre and puzzling animal.

[attention]

The myth of overpopulation and the real problem of poverty, caused by an injust economic system

Are there areas in the world which are overpopulated?
Yes they are, but they are not the areas people think that are overpopulated. The arctic zones, the deserts and the high mountains, are specifically areas which are more overpopulated as other areas.

This is because overpopulation is just a figure that expresses the relative amount of people that live in an area, and the amount of people it can contain and can find a living there, based on the economic potential of that area.

This is counter intuitive, cause people mix the term overpopulation with another and totally different term, which is the density of the population (the amount of people per square mile).
Suprisingly the most overpoplulated areas are often areas that have a low population density.

For the world in total there is still a tendency of people leaving rural areas and going to cities, especially in the so-called third world countries. The reason for that: the rural areas are overpopulated, and people go to the cities to find the means for economic sustainence.

The number of people living on this planet are as such not a problem, since the earth contains enough resources needed for sustaining everyone.

The real problem is however that the economic system doed not allow everyone in all countries, to have a decent living, to have access to education, healtcare, etc. The most poorest countries contribute the most to the growth of the world population.

The real problem therefore is not the amount of people, but the fact that due to the economic inbalance of the world, which is caused by an economy that is based on exploitation (i.e capitalism / imperialism), a great part of the world's population does not have acces to the economic means to sustain themselves in a decent way.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Rfburnhertz:
Prophecies that have not been fulfilled must also be entered into your averages and percentages. For example, if there were 10 and 8 were fulfilled that means it's not 100% accurate. To say, "oh that just hasn't happened yet," well, after the passage of a couple aeons, that get's a little stale.

Of course averages and percentages are made use of.

There is an actual % given for how much biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, I do ot off hand know what that % is; I do know it is a very high %.

Why is the fact that some prophices have not yet been fulfilled seeming to be some excuse to you?

As I said, no experation date for biblical prophices was given. Why do you feel a need to put such a date upon them?

Are you so lazy that you simply reject upon the fact that some have not yet been fulfilled?

Why not instead study those which are claimed to have been fulfilled and upon those you could then gather what the chance is that those remaining unfulfilled will or will not someday be fulfilled?

Re the prophecies proving the Bible. I'm sorry I've not stated this well, apparently, as you are still foggy on what I'm trying to say. Let me try again. The Bible stories are not just about the actual events that happened here on earth.

Prophecy. I am talking about prophecy.

Science has dug up evidence that there was a flood, possibly some other events that did actually happen. However, to make a claim that Moses did actually speak with God personally and receive the 10 commandments (and I don't necessarily doubt that he did) is beyond the boundaries of science and reason. It will never happen.

If you take what is known to be true of the bible as it relates to prophecy and, or, history then you can establish the fact that the bible is in fact reliable.

After having established this, then it is reasonable to believe that God did give to Moses the 10 commandements. Even if you are unable to find so called scientific evidence of the actual event.

Your men and women of science do the very same thing in nearly all fields of study. Evolution is of course the obvious.

We still to this day have no transition fossils, but it is upon the accumilation of other "facts" that transitions are assumed to have taken place.

I wonder, why is it good enough for the men and women of science but not for those of us who follow God?

Using your same reasoning then I could calim that surely God did give to Moses the 10 commandements in the exact manner the bible states as there is no scientific evidence that the event did not happen.

Though I follow the teachings of Jesus

You follow the teachings of Christ.?

Christ told us He was the only way to the father.
Do you believe this to be true?

[One Eyed Jack]

First of all, the world isn't overpopulated. But let's assume it is for the sake of argument and see where that leads.

If the planet is indeed overpopulated, then obviously the population needs to be stabilized. The most efficient way to accomplish this is by killing off large numbers of people. So these are the questions I would pose to those who believe such a thing...

How many should be killed? And who should we start with?

And please -- no excuses. Just answer these questions to the best of your ability.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
First of all, the world isn't overpopulated. But let's assume it is for the sake of argument and see where that leads.

If the planet is indeed overpopulated, then obviously the population needs to be stabilized. The most efficient way to accomplish this is by killing off large numbers of people. So these are the questions I would pose to those who believe such a thing...

How many should be killed? And who should we start with?


Margrett Sanger, founder of planned parenthood thought it would be a grand idea to kill off unborn babies, black persons, the poor and the eldrely.

She seemed to thin it best to start of with unborn babies.

The number of aborted babies is above 40 million now since '73. We allow more and more to be murdered everyday.

Seeing as 40 plus million doesn't seem to be enough, I guess we will have to move onto the elderly next.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
I corrected a statisic for you, It is actually 44 million.


'Gggrrrowl'

Why, what did I type?

[JosephofMessiah]

:readthis:

Originally posted by attention
The myth of overpopulation and the real problem of poverty, caused by an injust economic system

Are there areas in the world which are overpopulated?
Yes they are, but they are not the areas people think that are overpopulated. The arctic zones, the deserts and the high mountains, are specifically areas which are more overpopulated as other areas.

This is because overpopulation is just a figure that expresses the relative amount of people that live in an area, and the amount of people it can contain and can find a living there, based on the economic potential of that area.

This is counter intuitive, cause people mix the term overpopulation with another and totally different term, which is the density of the population (the amount of people per square mile).
Suprisingly the most overpoplulated areas are often areas that have a low population density.

For the world in total there is still a tendency of people leaving rural areas and going to cities, especially in the so-called third world countries. The reason for that: the rural areas are overpopulated, and people go to the cities to find the means for economic sustainence.

The number of people living on this planet are as such not a problem, since the earth contains enough resources needed for sustaining everyone.

The real problem is however that the economic system doed not allow everyone in all countries, to have a decent living, to have access to education, healtcare, etc. The most poorest countries contribute the most to the growth of the world population.

The real problem therefore is not the amount of people, but the fact that due to the economic inbalance of the world, which is caused by an economy that is based on exploitation (i.e capitalism / imperialism), a great part of the world's population does not have acces to the economic means to sustain themselves in a decent way.

:bow:
:first:

[attention]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Margrett Sanger, founder of planned parenthood thought it would be a grand idea to kill off unborn babies, black persons, the poor and the eldrely.

She seemed to thin it best to start of with unborn babies.

The number of aborted babies is above 40 million now since '73. We allow more and more to be murdered everyday.

Seeing as 40 plus million doesn't seem to be enough, I guess we will have to move onto the elderly next.

Why do you refer to a foetus as unborn babies?

Is an egg cell and sperm cell also an unborn baby?

If yes, what do you do to avoid that a monthly egg cell gets killed, and that the millions of sperm cells, find their ways to become a born child?

If not, when does this, when brought together, become a human being?

How many people that were actually born, suffer a miserable life, and die from curable diseases, hunger, war or other misery???

Wouldn't it be better to adress your worries about those already born and conscious people, instead of worrying about unconsciouss groups of cells?

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No it isn't. That's just another lie you've swallowed. The human population of the entire world can fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida.

Your first statement is correct.

The second in the literal sense also, but it would be a little inconvenient to let them live that way on so little space.

We must also have a living, we would need food, and other things.

In practice that answer therefore is incorrect.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by wickwoman
A discussion a week or more ago with Purex got me thinking along these lines. He said something to the effect that what we think of God is really an extension of our own psyche. This is a very general excerpt from the discussion which I hope he doesn’t mind I repeat but it bears further discussion.

I will make a general assumption here that none of us has ever met God personally.


:)
First define met.
I had this discussion with attention (who is exceedingly intelligent) and it is impossible to say if you have or have not met God.

An example:
-Moses comes down from a mountain and says a burning bush told him to go and kill a bunch of Egyptians to free Israel.

You are an Egyptian. Did Moses meet God?

Another example:
-Joan of Arc is told to lead an army and murder alot of people and is later murdered by the very Church which later gives her Sainthood.

Another example:
-Yeshua of Nazareth (or the incorrect name "Jesus" if you will which is pagan in origin), stated that he healed the sick and raised the dead by the power of his "Father" who he said was YHVH (God). The Orthodox of his day said he did so by the power of the evil one, Satan, for Christ called the Orthodox rulers Vipers and Hypocrits.

A man comes forward and says that a "still small voice" has told him that Christianity is a farce, created and forced upon mankind by evil men who wanted to continue in their pagan lies but mask it under the idea of a Trinity. This man claims to hear from the One True God of all mankind, I AM, YHVH, and through his speaches and actions provides limited evidence that he is a good and honest and upright man.

Is the still small voice of God or Satan?

This would depend, one hundred percent, on if you are a Christian or not.

This same man then attacks the governmental institutions of the World and their evils which have limited the minds of men over the centuries and caused great wars to happen. This man also speaks out against capitialism.

Is this still small voice of God or Satan?

This would depend, one hundred percent, on if you are a Capitalist or not.

In the end, it is not what a man says, or does, which means he is of God or not.

A man can even carry his only son up a hill to sacrifice him by the command of God, hearing God's voice and going to do what any modern man would label directly barbaric. And yet Abraham (a man which all three faiths claim had found God) DID such an action.

I have met my God in the form of a still small voice which provides knowledge to me I did not have prior to this input type. Needless to say, you hear a preacher say "God told me" all the time, but it is different for me, for I am a man that questions theology and I did not want to think that God existed for if God existed I believe part of Him must be evil to allow such evil to happen in our World (I was once an officer and I know what real injustice is).

Therefore, any man which steps forth and says, "God told me this" is defined within your heart, and you DO NOT KNOW if he is of God or not. Even false-prophets have done miraculous things, the prophets of Ra caused their staffs to become snakes also.

You know what reveals to mankind that a man is of God? Time.

God is ALWAYS on the side of Good, even when God is doing hard things, like harming Egypt.

People want a Being which is omnibenevolent, not a real God which is Omnipotent. That is the problem with the World system at present, we deny who we are, and listen to those that would corrupt who God is.

Have I met God?

Only GOD knows...


Based on that assumption I will also agree with Purex’s statement above. What we think about God is truly a figment of our imagination.


That sounds like an atheistic statement. Such that "God is a figment of our imagination." Santa Clause is a figment of my imagination. God (if God) is the One True God, a Being beyond mankind, over mankind, our Creator and Father.

Like I said, I personally (biased) believe I have met my God.
It is your personal belief system which would attack my understandings of the events of my life, because you want to preserve the things you have within your theological structure.

I just want to warn everyone to keep an open mind, because there are so many theological branches out there, someone has to be wrong...it might be those you weren't expecting.

And as a former Trinitarian, I'm blown away by YHVH's still small voice.


This isn’t to say that God doesn’t exist, however, we don’t REALLY KNOW what or who he/she is.


Well, we know He is what He has claimed.
Granted ALL human concepts fail when trying to demonstrate to us an Unlimited form of existence (because we are finite limited Beings), but in the end, we do have TESTS for God. Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient. Not in the Earth, nor Heaven's above, nor Ocean's deep.

If anything fails these tests, it is not God.

We may not be able to define what God _IS_ but we can define what God _IS NOT_.


Now, you can say the Bible describes God very well, however, you will first have to make an assumption that the Bible is true.


What you call assumption, some call inspiration.


This assumption will be based on your desire for it to be true or not; the evidence you have or haven’t seen to its truthfulness; your own personal “gullability” or lack thereof (in other words, are you a person who requires strict proof, a little bit of proof, or none at all in order to accept something);


As a man of pure logic when I was younger, the idea of faith was something so strange I linked myself to my parents belief to have any form of belief. I thought of God just like Santa Clause and once Santa was gone, I felt Church (and God) was simply a story told to me to get me to be good.

Now that I have another input variable to deal with in my life (which "preachers" always talked about but I thought they were full of crap), I have to accept that SOMETHING beyond the normal exists, and that God _is_ God.

Even if the experiences of my life are not indicative of God but of a mental disorder...what would scare me the most is that if I can be labeled and destroyed because of my mental patterns and thought, then those which began the very beliefs many hold so dear are also destroyed.

As in Moses. He comes down from the mountain and instead of people listening to him they lock him up and pump him full of zyprexa and label him schzo. The ten commandments are then from a "troubled mind" and YHVH never existed.

Then a Church of politically minded pagans is formed by a pagan ruler who hunts down those who have the original Torah and seeks to have it destroyed so that his Christianized version is all that is left so that later it cannot be tested against the original. He fails and we have the Torah and the KJV and they can be compared to see the corruptions.

In all, God is not some-THING to be proven. God is God. You either leave room for the Omnipotent One to exist or you do not. Some simply throw their hands up in the air and don't worry about it....I wish I could be one of those people even now...


...your personal experiences which would prepare you to accept that the Bible is true; and, I believe the most important reason of all, your faith in your own inner feelings and beliefs i.e., your ability to trust your own judgment. There are other factors which also affect a person’s decision to accept the Bible or not but they are too many to cover completely here.


One important one is historical evidence.
Those that teach the 'perfect' of God's Word (holding up KJV Bible) have a great lack of historical data in their minds.

In truth, there are great problems between the original Torah and the KJV and these problems are indicative to scribes which translated the Bible(KJV) into a Christianized form of what they aren't had setup in their minds: Trinity.

Now, if you wish to seek out in depth historical data, you must understand the political history of the Early Church, who was the one who formed it, what was the "great compromise."

Once this foundation is set, you can then progress beyond the blind faith doctrine and onto a more intellectual informed perspective of the Word of God (and that the Word of God can come from any source for God is NOT a respector of persons).


I read a wonderful quote today by JosephofMessiah in another thread:

“Not to mention ignorant Christians who actually think that Christianity has some sort of consensus viewpoint of God and doesn't realize that there are so many branches of Christianity you can basically believe anything you want to believe and still be called a Christian. Your ‘personal branch’ of Christianity is no more valid nor backed by scripture than other branches, and I can assure you that the various understandings of scriptures are the reasons for these various branches of theology.”


:o


I know most Christians would beg to differ with JofM here, however, I’d have to agree wholeheartedly with this one statement of his. Let’s be frank. If you are a Christian, you decided what kind of Christian you wanted to be. Whether you decided on your particular “brand” due to the mere convenience of it because it was a religion handed down to you by your parents or whether you stumbled across your brand because you were searching for something that fit you just right, you chose it.

“Every holy person seems to have a different doctrine and practice, but there's really only one work.”

-Rumi (Translated by Coleman Barks)


We are created in God's IMAGE.

We are like small finite pictures of God's Infinite Self.

It makes sense that the various smaller pictures have different "parts" of the Greater Whole Photo (I AM).

God told us to "seek and ye shall find" and what most Orthodox's don't get is that if it is HANDED to you on a silver platter it is more than likely wrong.

Handed and force feeding you is not seeking, that is accepting.


Whenever a fundamentalist Christian expresses a bigoted or prejudicial attitude towards another human being – i.e. homosexuals, for instance, they sometimes try to excuse their bad behavior by blaming it on their religion. However, there are mainstream Christian religions which do not condemn homosexual behavior and, if that fundamentalist Christian did not feel personally offended or threatened by homosexuality, they would most likely have chosen one of those “non-bigoted” religions.

There are Christian religions which do not send “everyone else” to Hell because they believe in a benevolent all loving, all powerful God who loves everyone, regardless of their country of origin, color of their skin, sexual orientation or any of the other myriad of reasons the “fundamentalist” God hates everyone else. Hard to imagine, isn’t it?


The Catholic Church now accepts that all Jewish persons are saved.
Jewish persons deny Christ, do not take the sacriment of the Church, and speak GREATLY against the Trinity's existence.

If the Catholic Church can come to a "logical" conclusion that God shall not condemn His People, don't you think that there is hope tha some-day those other branches of Christianity will wake up? I have my fingers crossed.

The darwinian tactics of Christianity is the main reason it has grown so much over the years. The "our way or Hell" doctrine plays well in the uneducated crowds of most of the 3rd World countries as well.


You have a choice. You want the rest of the world to think you are bound up by some universal truth but the real truth is, YOU HAVE A CHOICE. You made that choice based on what you already believed. You didn’t go to God with a blank and open mind.


I have to say that I personally was walking down my drive-way as a kid and looked up. A moment of clarity came to me and I just stood there looking into the sky.

I said, "Father (I call God Father as Christ did), I will serve you no matter whom nor what you turn out to be. If the World is a mechanism running through perfection, and we are all that is, I love you God. If you exist, and you are something which I shall never understand, even if you are not omnibenevolent, I serve my God. I serve God, my God, and I love my Heavenly Father."

I turned from that point without an answer and years later I fell into agnosticism because if God, then why not speak to your creation? For an omnipotent Creator, it sure is weak-a$$ to not be able to directly speak to us JUST LIKE ELIJAH. I had this argument many times with God, why him? I kept asking it over and over as I aged, why him? WTF did that guy do to make him any different from me? And if Peter wasn't an F-ing liar, and you are not a respector of persons, then why not speak TO ME?

Be careful what you ask for or YOU might become the moron standing up saying "God told me" someday and having people shake their heads at you and think you insane as well...


You have some preconceived ideas about who you thought God was and you picked a religion that fitted those ideas the best. Even if you didn’t get the chance to make an active choice, you make that choice every time you go to church on Sunday.


Heh, I wish.

I get up at around 7AM some Sundays.

I go to the Catholic's first, then to the Mormons at 10:30. Then to a full gospel church at 11:30. From there I go to another Church which I can only describe as "Messianic Judaism" from 12 to 1.

If I got to pick my church, I'd sleep in on Sunday, tell those churches to go F off, and when I got up I'd go take a walk with YHVH and listen.


A fundamentalist Christian has to fight every day against many factors in order to continue a faulty system of beliefs:

1. The beliefs and opinions of others
2. Their own personal, inner feelings which have often been suppressed and ignored
3. Logic and reasoning


Christianity is not against logic and reasoning.
Christianity is very logical.
Trinitarianism is illogical.

Christianity (following the words of Christ/Messiah) is not equal unto Trinitarianism and there are VAST differences in the theology of Christ to that of the Roman Mercathian Paul.

Please understand these differences and that the more removed the branch of Christianity is from Mercathianism/Trinitarianism the more accepting and non-judgemental it is.


4. The natural world in which we live
5. REALITY

My advice? Try going with the flow for a while. There’s no danger of getting lost. All paths lead to
LOVE.


Well, I kinda go with Einstein here:
--I hold in great contempt and detest those that would walk in line with the normal order of things and do not question and use their minds to try to understand beyond what is given to them. It is with a great sense of not accepting the authorities given to me in my youth that I found out that the real World was nothing like it had been described to me.

Rank and file is not my type. I go AGAINST the grain to find truth.

Buddha said it best: TRUST NOTHING PAST DOWN NO MATTER WHO IT IS FROM...test it, ensure it is for the common good, and ony then apply it.

(Paraphrasing the above of course)


“For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness.
Then one swoop, one swing of the arm, that work is over.
Free of who I was, free of presence, free of dangerous fear, hope, free of mountainous wanting.
The here-and-now mountain is a tiny piece of a piece of straw blown off into emptiness.”

-Rumi (Translated by Coleman Barks)

I think that you understand more than you even grasp you understand.

If there is one thing I hate about the Orthodox, it is that their tenants of faith tend to destroy the faith in those that would question their tenants.

Why do I have to buy into any story to find salvation?
Cannot God meet me where I am at?
Why is Thomas more blessed than I am?

Whatever requirement mankind creates for salvation, is a limitation they attempt to place upon God. Whatever requirement mankind creates for salvation, affects who God actually is, nor God's INFINITE JUSTICE one little bit.

As C. S. Lewis was fond of stating of who will be saved:
".......there will be surprises..."

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
The sad fact is, everyone cannot be saved because everyone does not want to be saved.


The above is a complete and total absolute lie.
And I say that as a relativist.

People do not wish to accept your particular branch sub-set of one theology.

People (all people) do wish to avoid pain.

The problem is that your theology makes no sense to anyone who can THINK.

God is omnipotent and Infinite justice.
God puts people into Hell for eternity for the things they do in a finite existence.

If your theology does not add up except to ignorance, then those "people" who you are claiming do not want to be "saved" are not "not wanting to be saved" they are simply refusing to believe the same ignorance of that particular branch sub-set of the one theology which you have fallen prey to.


The evidence is there. I cannot convince anyone of it.


Yeah, the evidence that Trinitarianism is one of the greatest evils to ever be forced upon mankind is very real and historically backed.

The problem is people so blinded into this sub-set of one theological viewpoint that they will never seek beyond it because they would rather only those "just like them" be saved and all the billions of others which have been created for the soul purpose of burning for all eternity to go to where they were created to go.

That is the problem. Those who would wish to save their life SHALL LOOSE THEIR LIFE....and Trinitarianism is nothing more than saving yourself and watching the rest of the world perish around you because they won't accept the same lies you live under.


When I feel being right is important, I cease to speak. I don't plead the case.

Like when my wife and I argue, if I know I am wrong and don't want to admit it, i just say 'whatever' like a stupid little kid, and shut up.

Besides, weather you know it or not your battle with truth is not against me or any other Christians.


You are correct. True CHRIST-ians are not a problem.
Trinitarianism is the problem.


Your battle is against the very God who created you.


Funny, I have not met this evil God you speak of.

Why would you serve him even if he did exist?


You can't win.

I can't. But since I do not fight my battle and YHVH walks before me, HE wins them for me.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by prodigalson
Far too human? Why would man write a book that says we(humans) are low-lifes scumbags and exalt God to the highest and that most people will go to hell?


Man is INHERENTLY hedonistic.
A fear of eternal punishment is what makes many uneducated people do good.

Contrary to popular belief, many do respond very well to "threats."


If man wrote the Bible with his own knowledge it would sound a lot like some of the posts in this thread i.e. all religions go to the same god, just be a good person and you'll work it out, and everyone goes to Heaven.


Funny, the Bible says this itself. One God doing all things, in the New Testament. Too bored right now to look it up.


God created Hell for Satan and his demons,


Why would God send an obediant defeated servant to Hell?
(Read JOB to discover the proper placement of Satan and God's relationship)

God created "evil" for mankind to have the choice of disobediance.
God is also responsible for all things.
--Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6.--


...but if sinful man wants to follow his father the Devil...


You just violated scripture and referred to Satan as a "father."
Watch it.
For there is but one Father, who is in HEAVEN.

Even if someone is of evil, God is still their Creator. They could be under Satan thumb, and God is still their Father/Creator. Because a child turns from you, does not make that child any less your child.


...to Hell than what is God supposed to do? Take away our Free Will?

Free Will. Good one. I like a good joke.
Even seen the studies on nuture and nature?
Free Will. Let me know when you find that under a genetic and environmentally limited creation.

Oh, you mean limited free will?

HHMMM, that would be more philosophically difficult to disprove, but even then, is not God responsible for all things?

Man, some of the theologies of the World just self implode when you try to apply reason and logic to them.

Buddha said it best:
"DO NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING...."

Investigate, seek, and (as promised) ye shall find....

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
First of all, the world isn't overpopulated.


You really do live in some fantasy world.


But let's assume it is for the sake of argument and see where that leads.


Lets...


If the planet is indeed overpopulated, then obviously the population needs to be stabilized.


That is only if you assume that "overpopulated = bad."


The most efficient way to accomplish this is by killing off large numbers of people.


We, saddly, do not have to do this.
Hunger, sickness/disease, improper nutrition, lack of education, lack of farmland, lack of basic clean water and sanitation, due to over population of certain cultures, regions, and under-developed areas does this for us.

Natural Selection so far, still works even upon the human race.

Some of us are just lucky to be born in the more advanced countries and can live behind some personal ignorance to the rest of the World and believe in some fairtale existence that everything is ok because I'm ok.

Then there are people who realize that suffereing, disease, hungery, mal-nutrition, and over population ARE within some areas of the World...and those people tend to do what they can to help out.


So these are the questions I would pose to those who believe such a thing...

How many should be killed?


Well, I don't know how many can the food supply support?
See, we don't have to kill them, they die naturally because there isn't enough food.


And who should we start with?


Well, it would be the under developed countries which lack the resources to support their population levels. But it is not "we" (as in a human mind) which does this, it is a very natural process that states that where there are too many of a given species and not enough resources, then that species shall die off until there is a balance. This still applies for the most part to humans in lesser developed regions.


And please -- no excuses. Just answer these questions to the best of your ability.

Done and done.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
You really do live in some fantasy world.

Hey, I'm not the one that got locked up and pumped full of zyprexa.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Hey, I'm not the one that got locked up and pumped full of zyprexa.

Yep.

Exactly my point in all my "postings."

The very idiots which should be locked up are out there loose on the World.

heh.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by Tye Porter You actually think this planet is over populated?


The World?
no.

Cultures, Certain Nations, locations, yes.


You are the one living in a fantasy world.


Some people can see hunger, suffering, and the complete lack of basic life supporting needs upon millions of people, and lie to themselves about the reality they live within and think in some fantasy of a theory that "everyone could live in Florida."

Once again, we have yet to supply everyone with the basic needs of life (Food, Shelter, Clean Water) on the space-ship Earth. Until we do, this means that the economic system, governmental/political systems, or the population are at fault.

While I cannot blame these problems ONLY on the population levels of certain regions, it IS a factor. But it is a factor just like all others. It is a contributing variable to a greater system of failure. If we were to fix governmental waste and political strife in many of these regions then some semblance of a normal life could result, but many war torn regions (and some which are no longer in war but recouping from past wars) have problems providing their populations with basic life needs.

We can go around and around on this all day, but the fact remains that there ARE regions which are not supplying their populations with basic needs. IF you deny this, so be it. Does this mean that those regions could support smaller populations? Yes. What do you call it when those same regions could support fewer people, but have more people than they can support? Over-population.

Is this a World-problem, YES, why? Because it is a SMALL WORLD AFTER ALL, and what goes around comes around.


I'll bet you also think that California will sink into the ocean,


No, California's fault line is not over/under it is a sliding fault line. The change could come in a great "slip" someday, but the likelihood of this is very low. The earthquakes from time to time release whatever pressure there is, if these earthquakes were not happening it could be building pressure and that could result in a great change in the land mass surrounding the area. Whether this would result in an island structure or not would deal greatly in sea levels of each area and where the epicenter is located when/if a Big One were to hit however.


...and that colorado will be beach front property some day, too.


IF the polar ice caps melt, it more than likely would not be colorado. But I would not give you a dime for any land located in California if I thought such were going to happen.

Luckily at present it seems we are in a warm spot of a global cooling time. We have altered the natural fluxes (which would have brought the temperature down) due to the effects of green house gases. We also are uncertain of the effects of all the dams we have built over the World which add alot of weight in one location and make the World "squat." The greater effects are also felt through volcanic activity, which is the greatest particle distributor known.


I got a bridge for sale... :kookoo:

'Gggrrrowl'

Funny, but, yes, yes I do....and I know at least two people who'd buy it...

[servent101]

rfburnhurtz

Christ told us He was the only way to the father.
Do you believe this to be true?

Jesus told a specific group of people in an isolated geographical location those words, (which by the way you may glean higher insight from those Words if you look up their meaning in their original language)

For most of the orthodox minded people they take these words to mean every other source of Spiritual knowledge is from the "evil one” The same people who by closing the canon of Christian Scripture admit that their God no longer speaks through them. I suggest as well that it was not God's intent to have these blind and mute guides close the cannon - it was merely a ploy to keep control over their blinded flock.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[servent101]

Joseph of "Messiah"

Your post was good, I enjoyed reading it, but to start out - You should not assume anything...

Just one comment - Things only build one way - Capitalism falls apart, that which is not form God is not going to last. We all eat the fruit of our deeds - those who live by the sword - sometimes live a day longer, but we all loose this lease on this body we have someday. What does last? What is contributing to our eternal well being? - Well you seem to have a good mind and I suspect that you would do better with my encouragement, rather than with my advice... Your post was good; hope you find your answers.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by servent101
Jesus told a specific group of people in an isolated geographical location those words

He also told them to preach it to the world. The argument you're trying to use here falls flat in the face of that fact. Unless, of course, you don't think He really told them to do that.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
You typed 4 mill.



'Gggrrrowl'

Yeah,
that would be wrong.

I meant to type 41 plus, as that was the last figure I read.

[prodigalson]

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Man is INHERENTLY hedonistic.
A fear of eternal punishment is what makes many uneducated people do good.

Contrary to popular belief, many do respond very well to "threats."

Wrong. If we went up to X amount of people, how many would say they deserve Hell? About 2%?

Funny, the Bible says this itself. One God doing all things, in the New Testament. Too bored right now to look it up.

You have taken my comment out of context. When I said if man wrote the Bible with his wisdom(I might of just added that) it would sound like a lot of the posts in this thread i.e. yours, wickwomans, pureX etc, that nobody can know the truth and that most people go to heaven.

Why would God send an obediant defeated servant to Hell?
(Read JOB to discover the proper placement of Satan and God's relationship)

God created "evil" for mankind to have the choice of disobediance.
God is also responsible for all things.
--Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6.--

You don't think Satan will be punished? Oh brother.:rolleyes:

You just violated scripture and referred to Satan as a "father."
Watch it.
For there is but one Father, who is in HEAVEN.

Even if someone is of evil, God is still their Creator. They could be under Satan thumb, and God is still their Father/Creator. Because a child turns from you, does not make that child any less your child.

I violated no such thing, Christ even said "You are from your father the Devil."

Free Will. Good one. I like a good joke.
Even seen the studies on nuture and nature?
Free Will. Let me know when you find that under a genetic and environmentally limited creation.

Oh, you mean limited free will?

I have no idea what this is from, I probably will not go back to read what I said before, maybe I will who knows.

Investigate, seek, and (as promised) ye shall find....

I know, I even had a thread about that. Most people will not find b/c they are not truly seeking the truth of God, they are seeking for a god that they think should be.

[zenya]

Originally posted by attention
Why do you refer to a foetus as unborn babies?

Is an egg cell and sperm cell also an unborn baby?

If yes, what do you do to avoid that a monthly egg cell gets killed, and that the millions of sperm cells, find their ways to become a born child?

If not, when does this, when brought together, become a human being?

How many people that were actually born, suffer a miserable life, and die from curable diseases, hunger, war or other misery???

Wouldn't it be better to adress your worries about those already born and conscious people, instead of worrying about unconsciouss groups of cells?

The term embryo and fetus dose not refer to nonhuman, but to humans at different stages of development.
Fetus--meaning young one or little child. Hmmm, so why not call them unborn baby? Does it then make you feel guilty to approve of murdering a human being.

Neither an egg cell or a sperm cell is complete in an of itself. Just like a hair cell or a heart cell hasn't the capacity to become anything else than what it is. But, when egg and sperm are joined, a new life begins. It is the same life from conception through death, just at different stages of development.

So, since my child might have become ill with cancer or may have been hit by a car, or may even have to live in a low income family I should just off them in utero? What kind of logic is that? What if your mother had thought like that? You need to think for yourself and not listen to what the pro-aborts tell you and the liberal media tells you.

Zenya

[attention]

Originally posted by zenya
The term embryo and fetus dose not refer to nonhuman, but to humans at different stages of development.
Fetus--meaning young one or little child. Hmmm, so why not call them unborn baby? Does it then make you feel guilty to approve of murdering a human being.

Neither an egg cell or a sperm cell is complete in an of itself. Just like a hair cell or a heart cell hasn't the capacity to become anything else than what it is. But, when egg and sperm are joined, a new life begins. It is the same life from conception through death, just at different stages of development.

So, since my child might have become ill with cancer or may have been hit by a car, or may even have to live in a low income family I should just off them in utero? What kind of logic is that? What if your mother had thought like that? You need to think for yourself and not listen to what the pro-aborts tell you and the liberal media tells you.


That is what I tried to say, from conception to birth the cell grows and becomes a human. And we can not precisely say where, but somewhere this new life already begins to sense and become consciouss.

Actually my point of view is that it is worse for a child that is already born to starve from hunger, be killed in a war, or whatever despair can cause a child or grown human being to be hurt.
An unborn baby does not know and does not sense completely like a human being. It has no way of knowing what happens.

If you ask me what is worse, it is worse for a child that knows that is alive and could have had a life to end up in a desperate situatuin, then unborn unconsciouss life, that does not have a way of knowing.

But abortion should only be considered in the case this is necessary both for mother and child.

If you ask me, what if my mother had aborted me. Well then I would not have been born, but neither I would have known that.
It would not hurt me in the least, but it would have hurt me if I was born and my mother would not have wanted me, or I would have ended up in a desperate situation.
That would be much worse.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by Prodigalson

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Man is INHERENTLY hedonistic.
A fear of eternal punishment is what makes many uneducated people do good.
Contrary to popular belief, many do respond very well to "threats."




Wrong. If we went up to X amount of people, how many would say they deserve Hell? About 2%?


Loaded question which leads to false negative.
First, some do not believe in Hell.
Second, some do not believe a God of Love sends people to hell.

To prove hedonism or lack there of, the test must be:
"Do you enjoy having extreme pain?"


Originally posted by JoM:
Funny, the Bible says this itself. One God doing all things, in the New Testament. Too bored right now to look it up.



Originally posted by Prodigalson
You have taken my comment out of context. When I said if man wrote the Bible with his wisdom (I might of just added that) it would sound like a lot of the posts in this thread i.e. yours, wickwomans, pureX etc, that nobody can know the truth and that most people go to heaven.


Actually, the Bible (Original) did not speak of afterlife.
The additions to the Bible included vague references to the afterlife.
The parables of Christ have been extrapolated to infer Hell.
The words Christ used in reference to a city dump, and the exact same word used by Job to mean "the grave" have been used by modern theologies to form the "turn or burn" routines.

In essence, while the Bible does speak of punishment, the Hell fire and brimstone origination is an exceedingly simplistic and literalistic viewpoint of holy text.


JoM:
Why would God send an obediant defeated servant to Hell?
(Read JOB to discover the proper placement of Satan and God's relationship)

God created "evil" for mankind to have the choice of disobediance.
God is also responsible for all things.
--Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6.--



Originally posted by Prodigalson
You don't think Satan will be punished? Oh brother.


Don't add words in my mouth.
Satan rose and fell in one action. God is not bound in time. Satan's punishment happened the instant of his agression and pride over took him.

You think Satan is "waiting to be punished" in a realm not bound under time?


JoM:
You just violated scripture and referred to Satan as a "father."
Watch it.
For there is but one Father, who is in HEAVEN.

Even if someone is of evil, God is still their Creator. They could be under Satan thumb, and God is still their Father/Creator. Because a child turns from you, does not make that child any less your child.



Originally posted by Prodigalson
I violated no such thing, Christ even said "You are from your father the Devil."


I stand corrected.
But this understanding is not Creator/Father, but of who they are in "line" with. Father, as a concept, has alot of additional meanings. Providing you do not mean it as Creator/Father, so be it.


Originally posted by Prodigalson
I know, I even had a thread about that. Most people will not find b/c they are not truly seeking the truth of God, they are seeking for a god that they think should be.


Very profound statement.
Some also never actually seek the One True God because they were enculturated into lies of paganism from early on. It really isn't there fault for it is hard to come out from under the theology of your youth, almost like having to give up the color of Santa's suit as red and a deer named Rudolph. But in the end, when we are all One again, and the Infinite Mind is before us, THERE WILL BE SURPRISES as to who is saved:


Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by attention
Why do you refer to a foetus as unborn babies?

Is an egg cell and sperm cell also an unborn baby?

If yes, what do you do to avoid that a monthly egg cell gets killed, and that the millions of sperm cells, find their ways to become a born child?

If not, when does this, when brought together, become a human being?

How many people that were actually born, suffer a miserable life, and die from curable diseases, hunger, war or other misery???

Wouldn't it be better to adress your worries about those already born and conscious people, instead of worrying about unconsciouss groups of cells?

In answer, see the post my wife Zenya made. Post #185.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by attention
And we can not precisely say where, but somewhere this new life already begins to sense and become consciouss.

We can say for sure that life begins at concenption. I suppose some can argue as to the worth or value of that life, but none the less it is a life at the very moment of conception.

As for when this life becomes aware that it is in fact a life, why would that matter?

Actually my point of view is that it is worse for a child that is already born to starve from hunger, be killed in a war, or whatever despair can cause a child or grown human being to be hurt.

Anyone can find themselves in a situation where they may experiance starvation or war or despair of any kind. This is part of the human experiance, we will all know suffering to one degree or another. Some will experiance extreme suffering, others will not.

The fact that a human may be hurt at sometime is no reason to not allow then the chance to live and prosper.


But abortion should only be considered in the case this is necessary both for mother and child.

If birth could end the life of the mother.

Not if it could end the life of the child, because abortion WILL end the life of the child.

But, such a thing is so very, very rare anymore that it is nearly a strawman to even bring it up.


If you ask me, what if my mother had aborted me. Well then I would not have been born, but neither I would have known that.
It would not hurt me in the least, but it would have hurt me if I was born and my mother would not have wanted me, or I would have ended up in a desperate situation.
That would be much worse.

That's silly. Your life would be worth nothing if your mother had not wanted you?

I was adopted. So seemingly my 'birth parents' did not want me. Though they may have had a good reason. It may have been that they loved me enough to give me up and give me a better chance then they thought they could provide me.

I wouldn't have it any other way. I am so very happy I was given up for adoption. I'm glad I was not aborted. And I was adopted into a family where my father was an alcoholic all of my life (he did stop drinking about ten years ago when I was in my 20's) and we were in actual poverty.

I went from the time I was 3 (when my parents divorced) until I was 15 with seeing my mom only twice.

Still, I would have it no other way. I had an opportunity to live and make the best of this life.

My wife has never know her father. He left before she was even born.

Would it have been better I was aborted? Would it have been better if she were aborted?

Life is hard sometimes. That is just the way it is. Abortion is not a reasoned method of avoiding hardship.

Besides, what are we doing deciding for another humanbeing (unborn) that life is to hard for them to live?

[attention]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
We can say for sure that life begins at concenption. I suppose some can argue as to the worth or value of that life, but none the less it is a life at the very moment of conception.


An egg-cell is living already before conception my friend. Same for sperm cells. They can live outside of the body for perhaps 2 days (unless frozen).


As for when this life becomes aware that it is in fact a life, why would that matter?


In the abortion issue this is a delicate matter I suppose.


Anyone can find themselves in a situation where they may experiance starvation or war or despair of any kind. This is part of the human experiance, we will all know suffering to one degree or another. Some will experiance extreme suffering, others will not.


As long as we are humans, and DO have the means to prevent that, my argument is that that is what should be done, since life is valuable.


The fact that a human may be hurt at sometime is no reason to not allow then the chance to live and prosper.


That is a misrepresentation of my argument, since that would indicate we better abort then all human life.

That is not what I was trying to say.

My argument was raised against those fanatic anti-abortion clubs, that say life is valuable. It is. And for that reason we should value anyone's lifes.
A pre-born unconsciouss life aborting, if there are severe reasons for that, is not like kiling a life, but more like avoiding something to become human. There is no human life hurt there.

But the human life already born, that is what should be protected.

That is my argument.


That's silly. Your life would be worth nothing if your mother had not wanted you?



This reasoning is absurd, since if I have not had a life, we could not even speak about the worth of my life, and I would have never known that.

I mean be real. For the same reason you could say that any ejaculation kills millions of lifes, since at most there is only one survivor. Should we for that matter deep freeze all sperm of all men ever alive, so that those sperms have a change of becoming humans?


I was adopted. So seemingly my 'birth parents' did not want me. Though they may have had a good reason. It may have been that they loved me enough to give me up and give me a better chance then they thought they could provide me.

I wouldn't have it any other way. I am so very happy I was given up for adoption. I'm glad I was not aborted. And I was adopted into a family where my father was an alcoholic all of my life (he did stop drinking about ten years ago when I was in my 20's) and we were in actual poverty.

I went from the time I was 3 (when my parents divorced) until I was 15 with seeing my mom only twice.

Still, I would have it no other way. I had an opportunity to live and make the best of this life.

My wife has never know her father. He left before she was even born.

Would it have been better I was aborted? Would it have been better if she were aborted?

Life is hard sometimes. That is just the way it is. Abortion is not a reasoned method of avoiding hardship.

Besides, what are we doing deciding for another humanbeing (unborn) that life is to hard for them to live?

I am no reasining from the argument we could abort lifes without precautions. Abortion is the last thing to do.
The first thing to do, is prepare yourself on wether or not you can take the responsibility for taking children.
And if you think you can't then use condoms and other means to prevent pregnancy.
But in the case it nevertheless happens, the mother should have the right to decide that the unborn foetus is taken away.

Besides ANY life that gets conceived is a decission.
So in ALL cases it is a decision, so what makes abortion special?

Any time people make love, but does not lead to pregnancy, that is also avoiding a possible human being of becoming alive.

Should we argue against that also?

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by attention
An egg-cell is living already before conception my friend. Same for sperm cells.

I believe we were speaking of conception. Not of an individual egg or sperm.

At the very moment of conception, a human life has begun.

In the abortion issue this is a delicate matter I suppose.

I don't see why it would be delicate, I just don't see why it would matter at what stage of life the humanbeing can know that they are a life.



As long as we are humans, and DO have the means to prevent that, my argument is that that is what should be done, since life is valuable.

I agree, where we are able we should do what we are able to limit suffering. But is this to include abortion? What about murder of the elderly? How about the retarded? The list could become endless.


That is a misrepresentation of my argument, since that would indicate we better abort then all human life.

It may well be. But, it seemed to me to be your reasoning.

My argument was raised against those fanatic anti-abortion clubs, that say life is valuable. It is. And for that reason we should value anyone's lifes.

Okay. I don't follow.
It seems you said that the fanatic PRO-LIFE clubs (I've never heard of such a club btw) are fanatic because they say life is is valuable.

Then you confirm that life is valuable.

So are you then a member of one of these supposed fanatical clubs?


A pre-born unconsciouss life aborting, if there are severe reasons for that, is not like kiling a life, but more like avoiding something to become human. There is no human life hurt there.

You are right, it is not like killing a life.
It is murder of a humanbeing.

How is it possible to avoid a already existant humanbeing from becoming what it already is?

This makes no sense.

It's like going out to spray weeds and once they die from the weed spray saying that they were never weeds.

They were weeds, they remain weeds, only now they are dead weeds.

The aborted were humanbeings from conception. After abortion they remain humanbeings, only now they are murdered humanbeings.

But the human life already born, that is what should be protected.

All innocent human life should be protected.
Be they born or unborn.


This reasoning is absurd, since if I have not had a life, we could not even speak about the worth of my life, and I would have never known that.

Seemed to me that is what you were saying.
It seemed you were saying that if your mother had not wanted you that it would have been better had you been aborted.

I mean be real. For the same reason you could say that any ejaculation kills millions of lifes, since at most there is only one survivor. Should we for that matter deep freeze all sperm of all men ever alive, so that those sperms have a change of becoming humans?

Ejaculation does result in the end of life for untold numbers of sperm. But that sperm is not human.

That sperm cannot become human with out an egg.

Again, we were talking conception.


But in the case it nevertheless happens, the mother should have the right to decide that the unborn foetus is taken away.

Why should a mother be able to "choose" death for another humanbeing?

The unborn child is not "taken away". The life is ended, the unborn child is murdered.

The mother becomes a murderer. A murderer of her own child.

Besides ANY life that gets conceived is a decission.
So in ALL cases it is a decision, so what makes abortion special?

I'm not sure I follow you here either.
You may need to explain further what you mean.

Any time people make love, but does not lead to pregnancy, that is also avoiding a possible human being of becoming alive.

So? What's the point there?

This doesn't even make sense.

The thought accours to me that if this topic is to continue, we should move it as it is way off topic for this thread.

If you want to carry on this conversation, begin a new thread and I will join you there.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
No problemo, Brother man, I got your back!
'Gggrrrowl'

Are you growling at me or do you just need some pepto? :)

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
You would be most polite not to notice that.
It was a "Command"/Deal that I made. Now I live with it.
Don't worry, it was a royaly fair trade!



'Gggrrrowl'

Guess I missed that one.

[frostmanj]

Originally posted by attention
If you ask me, what if my mother had aborted me. Well then I would not have been born, but neither I would have known that.
It would not hurt me in the least, but it would have hurt me if I was born and my mother would not have wanted me, or I would have ended up in a desperate situation.
That would be much worse.
This statement shows a complete lack of the knowledge of the Christian faith.

Christians believe that the child is imbued with a spirit from the moment of conception. Killing that child/spirit before it is born is NOT a favor. :nono:

Tell me 'attention' how did you become so jaded that you believe death is a much better option than life. How can you believe that the mother knows beyond a shadow of doubt that her child has absolutely no potential for good in life?

Maybe, just maybe, that mother should have thought about that before participating in casual (read selfish) sexual intercourse.:mad:

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by frostmanj
This statement shows a complete lack of the knowledge of the Christian faith.


Actually, no, it shows attentions World viewpoint and has zero to do with Christianity in the least.


Christians believe that the child is imbued with a spirit from the moment of conception.


Quite the contrary.
Christianity has various branches and sects.
Catholicism believes that concept is equal to birth but there are many sects of Messianic Judaism which follows the original understanding which is life begins at the first breath.


Killing that child/spirit before it is born is NOT a favor.


You are not killing a child, and you cannot presume a spirit unless you have direct scriptural evidence that life begins as conception. I can assure you there is none, and that scripturally life begins at first breath, also, I can assure you that a Spirit enters into a child before birth and conception. Before God formed us in the womb, he knew us.

The natural realm does not relate very well to the spiritual realm. Even though life begins at birth (at least under the Christianity which follows the tradition of Judaism over the Church of Rome's definitions), the Spirit was ALWAYS known.


Tell me 'attention' how did you become so jaded that you believe death is a much better option than life. How can you believe that the mother knows beyond a shadow of doubt that her child has absolutely no potential for good in life?


Such a subjective question is unanswerable without prophetic knowledge.


Maybe, just maybe, that mother should have thought about that before participating in casual (read selfish) sexual intercourse.

What about rape, incest, sickness and other issues. Abortion is not "yes or no" but is a highly specific thing which is on a case by case basis. That is one reason why the state AND any theocracy should be left out of it for there is not enough books to hold the variables which come into play when an abortion is being concidered.

The best rule of thumb is the basic rule of life. The host organism owns the body. This manner of logical thought allows us to treat humans first and parasitic organisms second. The woman decides for it was her body first, and no state, governmental institution, code of law, nor theocracy should even gain control over a woman's body. IF SUCH A THING EVER HAPPENS then that same perception can go down a road to where a man steps forward and tells you to take a mark upon your body.

[attention]

Originally posted by frostmanj
This statement shows a complete lack of the knowledge of the Christian faith.

Christians believe that the child is imbued with a spirit from the moment of conception. Killing that child/spirit before it is born is NOT a favor. :nono:


Since I am not a christian but a Materieliast, I go for the things we can know, and don't adapt unprovable thesis.

Christians should stick in mind that the they got their ways with killing too in the past, and if I remember well, the Iraq war also had some fundemental christian flavour in it.


Tell me 'attention' how did you become so jaded that you believe death is a much better option than life.

Death is not a better option then life, but to die already necessitates that there is life first.
A growing cell is life, but is not yet a human. And precisely when this growing cells become human, is not exactly determinable.


How can you believe that the mother knows beyond a shadow of doubt that her child has absolutely no potential for good in life?


Answer: I don't, but neither do you, so that is up to that specific mother then.


Maybe, just maybe, that mother should have thought about that before participating in casual (read selfish) sexual intercourse.:mad:

That is what I stated, so I agree on that part.

[zenya]

Dr Alfred M. Bongioanni professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the university of Pennslyvania had this to say about when life begins:
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception....I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....I am no more prepared to say that these early stages of development in womb represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the drematic effects of puberty is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data can not be decisive..It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception...Our laws, one function of which is to preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The biginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter--the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociolgical, political, or econimic goals."

As for the host organism statement. Why then in 1974 did the U.S. Congress vote unanimously to delay capital punishment of a pregnant woman until after the delivery of her unborn child. Why? Because even the pro-abort congressmen knew that the unborn baby was a seperate person not guilty of it's mother's crime. The baby in-utero is a distinctly different person, half of its genetic coding from mother half from father, thus making it an individual, not just a part of it's mother. The baby is not a tonsil or appendex, but a growing life. Why should the mother have the choice of murdering another human being just because at the time it resides inside of her?

Zenya

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by zenya
As for the host organism statement. Why then in 1974 did the U.S. Congress vote unanimously to delay capital punishment of a pregnant woman until after the delivery of her unborn child.


Because killing a pregnant woman is not politically correct.


Why? Because even the pro-abort congressmen knew that the unborn baby was a seperate person not guilty of it's mother's crime.


Actually, no.
The congressmen knew their jobs were on the line, and only voted because they knew their jobs were on the line. It is really easy to win an election against a man who has voted to kill a pregnant woman.


The baby in-utero is a distinctly different person, half of its genetic coding from mother half from father, thus making it an individual, not just a part of it's mother.


Exactly why I used the term host organism and parasitic organism.


The baby is not a tonsil or appendex, but a growing life.


Yep, just like bacteria and other parasitic organisms, an unborn child which has not taken first breath is not to be protected under the law, policy, nor by any government or theocractic rule. To do so removes the fundamental control of a human's body from that human to the state, and at that exact moment a man shall step forward and brand mankind with his evil mark.


Why should the mother have the choice of murdering another human


False assumption.
It is a life-form which shall progress to birth and first breath spiritual conception.
It is a parasitic life form within the host mother until it is born.


...being just because at the time it resides inside of her?
Zenya

Yep.
You are able to kill a sickness under the law because the law protects YOU over the sickness. If a law existed inwhich we must protect all life forms then all life would die, for all life is the result of something dying. Plants are a life-form.

That is why we have the terms host and parasite. At all times under our laws and our policies it is important to note that we humans protect the host, and attempt at times to protect parasitic organisms (either for study or because they are future viable life). And unborn fetus is nothing more than that, the soul is known by God before it is even formed within the womb, but the final rule on what is to happen to any one person's body, is THAT PERSON'S say. No man nor woman should ever give over their rights to what happens to their bodies to the law, policy, government, or theocracy. At such a time, Revelations will begin, and mankind shall be branded by the evil one.

Abortion is a greater issue than you realize, for if you take this right of the host from the woman and give it to the state, you have just surrendered a woman's body unto the state. At such a point, we are no longer free, we are under the total and complete ownership of the state to our bodies.

God allows us to sin.
Man must also allow us to sin and let God sort out who was just and who is not just.

The most crime free country in the World which has ever existed was Nazi Germany.

Remember that. Your Naziesque tactics of state ownership of a person has been done, and mankind has progressed beyond such ignorance.

Now all we have to do is get the "right wingers" to realize exactly what they are trying to do to our society.

[BillyBob]

Don't forget the Redneck Auction!!!!

C'mon folks. If everyone gave just ten bucks, Tye would be digging his way out of a very deep hole.

I would love to see Minus 3000 posts!!!!!!!!!1

-3000

[isn't it pretty!!!!]

Ten bucks each!!!!!!!

That's less than the cost of a cup of coffee every morning for a month.

The Redneck Club will match every ten dollar donation from here on until the end of the Auction.

If you wanna donate more, all the better!

Let's watch Tye's post count sink into oblivion!!!!!


Remove Tye's Posts Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=294019#post294019)

[zenya]

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Because killing a pregnant woman is not politically correct.



Actually, no.
The congressmen knew their jobs were on the line, and only voted because they knew their jobs were on the line. It is really easy to win an election against a man who has voted to kill a pregnant woman.



Exactly why I used the term host organism and parasitic organism.



Yep, just like bacteria and other parasitic organisms, an unborn child which has not taken first breath is not to be protected under the law, policy, nor by any government or theocractic rule. To do so removes the fundamental control of a human's body from that human to the state, and at that exact moment a man shall step forward and brand mankind with his evil mark.



False assumption.
It is a life-form which shall progress to birth and first breath spiritual conception.
It is a parasitic life form within the host mother until it is born.



Yep.
You are able to kill a sickness under the law because the law protects YOU over the sickness. If a law existed inwhich we must protect all life forms then all life would die, for all life is the result of something dying. Plants are a life-form.

That is why we have the terms host and parasite. At all times under our laws and our policies it is important to note that we humans protect the host, and attempt at times to protect parasitic organisms (either for study or because they are future viable life). And unborn fetus is nothing more than that, the soul is known by God before it is even formed within the womb, but the final rule on what is to happen to any one person's body, is THAT PERSON'S say. No man nor woman should ever give over their rights to what happens to their bodies to the law, policy, government, or theocracy. At such a time, Revelations will begin, and mankind shall be branded by the evil one.

Abortion is a greater issue than you realize, for if you take this right of the host from the woman and give it to the state, you have just surrendered a woman's body unto the state. At such a point, we are no longer free, we are under the total and complete ownership of the state to our bodies.

God allows us to sin.
Man must also allow us to sin and let God sort out who was just and who is not just.

The most crime free country in the World which has ever existed was Nazi Germany.

Remember that. Your Naziesque tactics of state ownership of a person has been done, and mankind has progressed beyond such ignorance.

Now all we have to do is get the "right wingers" to realize exactly what they are trying to do to our society.

YOUR MOTHER may have been a host and YOU may have been an organism. But, my mother is a human being and I was an unborn baby growing inside of her. You make humankind sound like sludge or bacterial germs. Hmmm...me thinks you may believe in evolution. You sure value human life like we all crawled out of the pri-mordial slime.


So let me get this straight, I am a Nazi because I stand up for the unborn child? What a crock of crap. A woman that murders her unborn child is the one you should be aiming at my friend. I simply don't fall for the "until it takes it's first breath, it isn't a life". If God wanted the child murdered, he wouldn't of blessed the woman with the child. Yes, he allows us to sin. You are right there. But, do you really believe that is His plan, for some women to murder their unborn child? What is wrong from trying to steer someone clear of sin and save a life at the same time?

As a 'right winger' you need to look at you leftist views. Your political views and party is what is destroying America.

Zenya

[Stratnerd]

Hmmm...me thinks you may believe in evolution. You sure value human life like we all crawled out of the pri-mordial slime.

Z-

Belief in evolution has nothing to do with how one values life. If you have a beef with evolution then please go to those thread and we can discuss it.

[attention]

The abortion issue can not be judged purely on idological terms.

Anyone agrees that taking a way the cell 1 day after conception, is not killing a child.
Anyone agrees that taken a way a baby 1 day before birth is killing a child.

So the answer as to what we can consider to be right, is somewhere between.

It is obvious thought that abortion is never a first or even a second option. The first options is that one should protect against unwanted pregnacy, and the second option is keeping the child.

Only in the very desperate situation, one cen think of abortion.
Nobody will like the option as such, and also for the mother it is a terryfying experience. But there is a rught for the mother to decide about this in the first stage of pregnacy.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Margrett Sanger, founder of planned parenthood thought it would be a grand idea to kill off unborn babies, black persons, the poor and the eldrely.

She seemed to thin it best to start of with unborn babies.

The number of aborted babies is above 40 million now since '73. We allow more and more to be murdered everyday.

Seeing as 40 plus million doesn't seem to be enough, I guess we will have to move onto the elderly next.

Yes, the fundamentalists are always ready to save the children, however, when it comes to supporting those people they want to live, they seem to support the politicians who cut their programs the most often.

So, if they live that's all that really matters? It doesn' t matter if they live with 9 other brothers and sisters with a mother that doesn't have a job and who doesn't want them? It doesn't matter if they can't afford to go to college and end up on unemployment? When these unborn babies grow up and some of them become homeless, jobless, in jail, do you intend to support them? Do you intend to rehabilitate them? What is your plan?

[zenya]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
Z-

Belief in evolution has nothing to do with how one values life. If you have a beef with evolution then please go to those thread and we can discuss it.

Belief in evolution has every thing to do with how one values life. If you believe in evolution instead of a creator (GOD) than yes, you value life less. Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell. Why would you value the life of a human? You believe we came from nothing, we evolved from monkeys, am I right?

I have no interest in debating evolution, I know it is a lie. You have my 2 cents, and I have yours.

Zenya

[zenya]

Originally posted by attention
The abortion issue can not be judged purely on idological terms.

Anyone agrees that taking a way the cell 1 day after conception, is not killing a child.
Anyone agrees that taken a way a baby 1 day before birth is killing a child.

So the answer as to what we can consider to be right, is somewhere between.

It is obvious thought that abortion is never a first or even a second option. The first options is that one should protect against unwanted pregnacy, and the second option is keeping the child.

Only in the very desperate situation, one cen think of abortion.
Nobody will like the option as such, and also for the mother it is a terryfying experience. But there is a rught for the mother to decide about this in the first stage of pregnacy.

YOU may agree that taking the cell away one day after conception is not killing a child. I DO NOT agree. I do agree that any time the life is terminated from conception to birth is the death of a child.

The only choice the woman has is whether to lay down or not. After that it is not up to her, well legally it is. But, does it make it moral? I think not.

Zenya

[Stratnerd]

Belief in evolution has every thing to do with how one values life. If you believe in evolution instead of a creator (GOD) than yes, you value life less.

I know this is complete BS because I know how I feel about life and I am an "evolutionist". Bin Laden believes in a creator and look at how much he values life. Atrocities can be done in any name - look at Saul and David; these guys killed lots of babies with Gods blessing. And if you believe in the flood and creation then God killed lots of babies.

Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell. ok loony toon

Why would you value the life of a human? I have emotions and a brain and you?

am I right? no

I know it is a lie. and you know this because???

You have my 2 cents, and I have yours. well if you think evolution is a lie then you don't have anything.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Yes, the fundamentalists are always ready to save the children, however, when it comes to supporting those people they want to live, they seem to support the politicians who cut their programs the most often.

That's because the parents should support them. If they don't, they should go to jail. Then the state can pick up their tab, and the parent can do hard labor in prison until they've paid it back. Seems fair enough to me.

[attention]

Originally posted by zenya
YOU may agree that taking the cell away one day after conception is not killing a child. I DO NOT agree. I do agree that any time the life is terminated from conception to birth is the death of a child.

The only choice the woman has is whether to lay down or not. After that it is not up to her, well legally it is. But, does it make it moral? I think not.


So, you say that an egg that met a sperm, at that very time is a child. That is simply NONSENSE. It is no more a child then the the egg and the sperm together. You would have a LARGE job then, protecting every egg cell and every sperm, from not becoming a child.

Judged on your inappriate thinking in that matter, I don't think your appeal to morality on that issue is worth considering either.

[attention]

Originally posted by zenya
Belief in evolution has every thing to do with how one values life. If you believe in evolution instead of a creator (GOD) than yes, you value life less. Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell. Why would you value the life of a human? You believe we came from nothing, we evolved from monkeys, am I right?

I have no interest in debating evolution, I know it is a lie. You have my 2 cents, and I have yours.


You might not belief this, but evolution is true DESPITE that you don't understand it, and therefore refuse to take that as a fact.

Your claim about validating life based on an inexisting entity is absurd, same absurd as the entity itself you believe in.
Evolution is the factual record of how things evolved, and where we came from, which is proved because we observe it, and we observed the fossil record for what happened in the past.
We value life, because we know it has been such a long development process, and it means something, because life itself is a struggle. If all came about at the snap of a finger, the talking of a mere word, or the mere breath of a 'higher being', then what value does it have? Nothing. Such are phantasies and fairy tailes, that explain nothing. Without the real development process itself, life would be utterly and totaly nonsensical. If we would have been the experiment of such a being, or would have been the experiment of an alien species, that would make life itself ridiculous and not worth living.

Name just ONE fact that could proof 'creation' as something that could account for the existence of any thing and would exclude any other reasonable explenation, and we could consider it.
But since you can't, you are talking TOTAL NONSENSE here.

[One Eyed Jack]

Life begins at conception. This is a medical fact, whether or not you choose to accept it. Of course you'll probably deny it, once again proving the contention that many atheists have difficulty accepting what science tells us.

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Life begins at conception. This is a medical fact, whether or not you choose to accept it. Of course you'll probably deny it, once again proving the contention that many atheists have difficulty accepting what science tells us.

So egg cells and sperm cells denote something non-living then?

You can only claim that at conception the genetic properties of the individual have become determined, but that's that.

If getting life from non-life was as easy as you try to make us think here, why has this life from non-life issue not been resolved earlier then?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
So egg cells and sperm cells denote something non-living then?

No. Allow me to make myself more clear. Human life begins at conception. So does animal life, but that's not the topic of discussion here. Neither is the aliveness of haploid reproductive cells.

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
That's because the parents should support them. If they don't, they should go to jail. Then the state can pick up their tab, and the parent can do hard labor in prison until they've paid it back. Seems fair enough to me.

Yeah. And we can of course go in saying that this or that should be the case. There should be no crime. There should be no war. There should be no unjustice. There should be no hunger. There should be no poverty. There should be no oppression. There should be no exploitation. There should be no racism. There should be no unemployment. There should be no disease. Etc.

But reality is not to be conceived in such "should be's", but we have to look at reality as it is. What you in fact are saying here is that depite any factual social or economic circumstances that might exist, if parents can't support their children, they are the only ones to blame in all cases and should be punished for that.
That is blind judgement. You have to look at the facts first, before you can make such judgements. It could be not the parents themelves but factors outside their blame, are the real cause for their desperate situation, in which their children didn't get the support they need.
Unemployment and poverty for instance, as social factors, aren't the blame of the individuals, but you have to take other societal and economical factors into account for that as well.
Your approach is that from utter simplicity and blind judgement.
The only situation in which your "judgement" was valid, was in the case these parents and their children were the only people alive. But then there was no society and there were no jails either. But since parents happen to live in a society as also their children, you have to take the circumstances of that society into account as well.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
What you in fact are saying here is that depite any factual social or economic circumstances that might exist, if parents can't support their children, they are the only ones to blame in all cases and should be punished for that.

Pretty much. If they can't get a job and support their children, who else is there to blame?

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Pretty much. If they can't get a job and support their children, who else is there to blame?

Perhaps it could occur to your one-dimensional brain that social, economical and political conditions are to blame for such circumstances.
Ever heard of mismanagement of enterprises, of capitalist crisis, which puts thousands people out of jobs? Ever read any social-economical history?

You are simply trying to tell us that every individual or family lives on a fantasy island, in which all human circumstances can be blamed on only that persons alife.

But social reality is much more complex as your one-dimensional model of it.

I don't argue against the responsibility of individuals for their own well being. Anyone who lost a job and is capable of working, should try to find a job. My argument is that since we live in a society, there are good reason why in particular cases that there is in some cases also a responsibility apart from the parents for the social situation they are in. Not all individuals are to blame for the fact that they lost their job.

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No. Allow me to make myself more clear. Human life begins at conception. So does animal life, but that's not the topic of discussion here. Neither is the aliveness of haploid reproductive cells.

It originates from there, and at the moment of conception, what happens is that the genetic properties that will form later that human individual become determined.

But what I would argue is that this cell, that will grow into a new human being, is not yet a human at that point. One human cell is not a human. Not when it is two cells either. So the question as to when in fact a human starts being a human, is a tricky question.
It is same tricky as to ask when does a pile of sand become a pile of sand. Is one granule of sand a pile? No. Two? No. And if some fixed amount of granules of sand is not a pile, and if we add one granule of sand, it is not a pile, how can any amount of granules of sand become a pile? Yet there ARE piles of sand, existing of some fixed amount of granules of sand.
The nature of the things we discuss here are in this way not easy determinable. So one human cell is not a human. Two neither.
But if we go on, is the baby one minute before birth still a bunch of - although living - cells but not yet a human?
This we can not argue of course, since a baby just before birth is as much a human as it is a minute after birth.

So this means we have to make some judgement as to what vital property there are that makes a collection of human cells a human, which is somewhere between one cell at conception, and a full grown baby at birth.

To my knowledge on such terms in many countries legislation has been made, which comes up with an amount of weeks after conception, in which abortion is lawfull, and thereafter not.
It is of course the case, that such a determination of what is pre-human and what is human, is not in any way an exact measure.

I think that is the only reasonable approach.

My own opinion is that within this legal framework, it is the right of the mother to decide wether she should have the baby.
And of course this is always the last option, since nowadays, through sexual education and availability of prevention measures, except in rare cases (rape for instance), an abortion should not be a normal option.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by zenya
YOUR MOTHER may have been a host


All "mothers" are hosts during pregnancy by definition of the term HOST.

If you wish to fight the definition of the term HOST, then you need to contact those that define words, not myself, I just use terms for what they mean to put specific life functions under those terms which are not defined by myself personally.


...and YOU may have been an organism.


All of all life is a form of life. An "organism" as it were. You, me, everyone, all life-forms are organisms.

Again, you are trying to argue that I have defined something incorrectly then you must provide another definition. You have not, therefore you are under a fallacy of logic, arguing from ignorance, and I honestly feel I do not have to respond to your ignorance, I only do so because I am sitting here watching the Simpsons and I find you slightly more humorous than this episode is so far...


But, my mother is a human being...


A human being is an organism, and all mothers are HOSTs during that time period. All human beings are hosts also, for we carry other life forms within us throughout our life (even if only in our intestines).


...and I was an unborn baby growing inside of her.


Yes, you were a fetus growing as a parasitic life form within your host mother. Exactly what I said, I just used more technical terms.


You make humankind sound like sludge or bacterial germs.


No, you jump to ignorant conclusions and false assumptions.


Hmmm...me thinks you may believe in evolution.


Does life evolve?
Yes, proven fact.
What TYPE of evolution is all that we can argue now.


You sure value human life like we all crawled out of the pri-mordial slime.


No, I have an extraordinary love for human life, having almost died so many times. But I do still define all forms of life as it is at any given point, and I do not ever allow a lesser form of life take control of the host species and be the deciding factor.


So let me get this straight, I am a Nazi because I stand up for the unborn child?


No, you are a Nazi, because those like you at one point gave over their rights of their bodies to the state and became owned by the State. At such a point women and men could have anything done to them the State ordered without their concent. This was what Nazism was, servant to the State (for the State had become as God). This is also what happens in theocracies. Therefore, you are not a "nazi" "only for standing up for the lesser life form within a host," but you are liken unto those which did this in the past, and your form of government and political actions have been done, are of our past, and shall never, not ever come forward again. We know very well what Nazi's respond to, and we (human-kind) will respond with due nature and kill off those members who think as this in order to protect freedom and liberty.

If God allows sin then so shall mankind. It is not your right to stop this, it is the mother's body until that child/organism is separated from the host. We do not protect the lesser organism under our law and policy, to do so would be logically incoherent.


What a crock of crap.


Yes, Nazism is a crock of crap, and you would think these right winger fascists would realize where they are leading us toward yet again, but they have yet to wake up from the new "MyCarthyism" which has swept our country.


A woman that murders her unborn child is the one you should be aiming at my friend.


Loaded, exceedingly so, statement.
-It is not murder to end the life of a part of your body (even another organism entirely) for under our law we protect the rights of the host over the parasitic.
-It is not a child by definition of the term child, again, if you want to call something a concept, please do not change the entire idea of that concept and begin redefining words to create false empathy for that which does not yet fall under the definition of child, it is a fetus. A child has taken first breath.
-I do, in all my ways, attack the need for abortion at all times for it is a relative evil which is an "after the fact" decision unless it is done for medical purposes such as to save the mother (entopic pregnancies and such). I attack abortion where it should be attacked, especially by the faithful. I attempt to educate the youth to how easy it is to get pregnant, especially the young ladies, have available to them protectionary methods if they were to fail in their sexual life before marriage, and teach them that abstinance is the best route (and being a virgin man at 28 years old I practice what I preach). I also advocate strongly for second chance housing and young mother alternatives. But in the end, it is the WOMAN'S BODY, and her decision, not the states, church's, nor theocracy, nor democracy...no one's but HERS. Her body, until that organism is outside it.


I simply don't fall for the "until it takes it's first breath, it isn't a life". If God wanted the child murdered, he wouldn't of blessed the woman with the child.


Argument from ignorance.
"If God wanted us to have open heart surgeries we would have zippers in our chest."
"If God wanted us to fly we would have wings."
"If God wanted us to...."
I hope you see how completely ignorant you are being.
Abortion is not only "protect that organism."
It is socio-economical-politcal and over-all statement of how much a STATE owns your BODY. THAT is of exceedingly important definition within the courts, for when a State owns your body, they can force you to do ANYTHING to your body. The body, is yours, given to you by God. You have a RIGHT to sin. If you do not like another's sin, tell them about it. Period.

You right wing Nazi dumba$$es don't get that you are leading us toward another fascist military state, and if you don't clue in soon, the state WILL own you, permenently, because the US is the strongest country, and nobody can beat us, unlike Germany.


Yes, he allows us to sin. You are right there. But, do you really believe that is His plan, for some women to murder their unborn child?


I will play the same advocate you just did above...
"If God didn't want us to not abort babies He wouldn't have allowed us to figure out how to do it."

See how completely ignorant you were being above?


What is wrong from trying to steer someone clear of sin and save a life at the same time?


Well, that would be really good and all, except that the Nazi's thought the exact same way you fascist F stick.


As a 'right winger' you need to look at you leftist views. Your political views and party is what is destroying America.
Zenya

My political views are not enacted yet in America.
If education and intelligence continue to expand, then perhaps someday the actual rational and logical law shall be in place and man will turn away from the Naziesque routine which we are headed toward.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by zenya
Belief in evolution has every thing to do with how one values life.


Unfounded assertion.


If you believe in evolution instead of a creator (GOD) than yes, you value life less.


Unfounded assertion, attempts to place your viewpoint of another system of data interpretation upon those which hold view differing from you. Many Atheistic persons value life more-so than any theist ever will because they accept that death is an end.


Evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell.


Unfounded assertion.
Hell is an unproven concept, first of all.
Evolution is proven in some regards (adaptation over time), and not proven in others (macro-evolution species to species changes).

Even the concept evolution has so many sub-set concepts built in that there could be some correct and some incorrect points. Some believe goop to zoo and others believe that life comes from life. Evolution is interpretation of data, neither speaks for nor against "God" as a concept existing.

Your personal view of evolution is based upon ignorance, I can assure you of this.


Why would you value the life of a human?


Basic empathy to like-species (we tend to protect those like us). Comes from "pack thinking" and is derivative inthat more than one hunter is likely to bring home more food. Developed over time into social networks, extended families, and such...


You believe we came from nothing, we evolved from monkeys, am I right?


This statement above, goes to demonstrate your utter and total ignorance to the idea of the origin of life under evolutionary methods.

You labeled a concept "evil" in your own mind, without understanding that concept, nor giving it any credit, and then, because of this ignorant label have never allowed any INTELLIGENCE or KNOWLEDGE of that concept to enter your mind. It would do you a world of good, and give you a great love FOR LIFE to study on the origin OF LIFE and how fragile our way of existence is.


I have no interest in debating evolution,


Of course not, you have no feet to stand upon, and the King has no clothes.


I know it is a lie.


Your ignorance knows now bounds, that is all you have demonstrated.


You have my 2 cents, and I have yours.

Zenya

You didn't have mine yet, now you have it.

The most dangerous thing is not knowledge, it is the allusion of knowledge by which men have misled mankind to maintain the lies of ancients for way too long.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by attention
You might not belief this, but evolution is true DESPITE that you don't understand it, and therefore refuse to take that as a fact.


I think we can agree that some points of evolution are true, and some are well supported theory that covers such spans of time that we cannot say it is fact.

There are other explainations for the explosion of life in the geological timescale...and implantation is just one of them.


Your claim about validating life based on an inexisting entity is absurd, same absurd as the entity itself you believe in.


Abiogenesis is a little weak at present.
Basic evolution states that life came from life.

Please do not confuse these concepts, because it is hard enough to talk to Creationists about this stuff without "lumping in" abiogenesis with evolution.


Evolution is the factual record of how things evolved,


Evolution is a theory of the data of the incomplete record of how things may have evolved.


...and where we came from, which is proved because we observe it, and we observed the fossil record


Incomplete, and misinterpreted at times, fossil record.

It is not a for-gone conclusion. It is a theory. A well supported hypothesis, but THAT is a theory.


...for what happened in the past.
We value life, because we know it has been such a long development process, and it means something, because life itself is a struggle. If all came about at the snap of a finger, the talking of a mere word, or the mere breath of a 'higher being', then what value does it have?


Your parents sat down one day and said, "let's."
Does that devalue your life?

Or, your parents got together in the back seat of a car and the condom broke.
Does that devalue your life?

People say strange things all the time, but the one that really annoys me is that the "start" of something give or does not give it reason and purpose for being. That is why I am the one that was the only person so far to put "I DON'T CARE" in the poll. Why? Because HOW I CAME ABOUT DOES NOT AFFECT MY LIFE. My faith in God, and in who God is, is not affected in the least by if He set all in motion, or merely "allowed it" (Let the Earth...)


Nothing. Such are phantasies and fairy tailes, that explain nothing. Without the real development process itself, life would be utterly and totaly nonsensical.


If/When we did not know the real development processes, was life utterly and totaly nonsensical then? No, it gave us purpose to seek the development processes...


If we would have been the experiment of such a being, or would have been the experiment of an alien species, that would make life itself ridiculous and not worth living.


Lab Rat, if you want to say your existence is somehow unwanted because might be a Lab Rat, then so be it.

Personally, IF this life is a TEST of my Heavenly Father, then bring on the tests, it is better than the alternative of non-life (IMO).


Name just ONE fact that could proof 'creation' as something that could account for the existence of any thing and would exclude any other reasonable explenation, and we could consider it.


We see matter begin to collapse around a "supposed" black hole, and mass comes about it, the black hole force/gravitational pull and all the matter that was around it vanishes....into???

Could be the creation of another "verse" within the "uni-?"

That would be one way to proof that a "creation" forms another "verse" from what was already there...

But I really think the above paragraph from you doesn't ask an answerable question, even to matter. I mean, "name just ONE fact that could proof 'matter' as something that could account for the existence of any thing and would exclude any other reasonable explenation, and we could consider it." I think that would be a reasonable statement inthat the phiolosophical definition of matter is not reachable....at least YOUR definition isn't. We can see that atomic structures are accountable for our present state of existence....but that is not all that matter is...

I guess I'm asking you to rephrase your question so that I can grasp it in more depth.


But since you can't, you are talking TOTAL NONSENSE here.

I think your statement above was close to it, or in the very least you went over my technical level. When you say "proof" then you may mean a "test for a Greater Being" which is a false statement because a Greater Being is the tester of the lesser being and not the other way around. In other words, to believe in God is to believe you are the rat in the maze and not the tester of the tester. This brings about the ending of the discussion in the word FAITH and that is that....and we can get back to studying the SEEABLE and KNOWABLE and forget about all these other arguments of ignorance.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
Ever heard of mismanagement of enterprises, of capitalist crisis, which puts thousands people out of jobs?

They can find other jobs. If they have kids to support, that's what they'd better do.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
But what I would argue is that this cell, that will grow into a new human being, is not yet a human at that point.

And that's where you're wrong. Once again, proving the point I made earlier -- atheists have trouble accepting scientific facts.

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
And that's where you're wrong. Once again, proving the point I made earlier

It's a human living cell, that grows to become a full human, but it is not yet a human. A human consists of signifincatly more cells, has a brain and a heart, etc.

atheists have trouble accepting scientific facts.

We don't.

The only purpose you find in science is to find one part of science to disproof another part of science, in order to disqualify science alltogether.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
It's a human living cell, that grows to become a full human, but it is not yet a human.

Yes, it is.

We don't.

Yes, you do.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
And that's where you're wrong.


Actually, he isn't:


www.dictionary.com
Human: A person
Person: The living body of a human
Body: The largest or principal part of an organ; corpus
Organ: A differentiated part of an organism, such as an eye, wing, or leaf, that performs a specific function.


A zygote (The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage), is therefore, not YET human IF we are to stick directly to these concepts by their given definitions.

To be human is to be more than a single-cell organism in other words.


Once again, proving the point I made earlier -- atheists have trouble accepting scientific facts.

You are not stating scientific facts, you are blurring the lines and changing definitions of terms in to offer false evidence for your false assumptions.

[Stratnerd]

Why don't you guys first define what a human is then see if a zygote, etc fits the criteria.

A zygote and up to a certain stage isn't human morphologically; at least it isn't distinguishable from other organisms but a zygote is a human genetically- just a very very tiny one.

[attention]

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
I think we can agree that some points of evolution are true, and some are well supported theory that covers such spans of time that we cannot say it is fact.

There are other explainations for the explosion of life in the geological timescale...and implantation is just one of them.


Implantation? Alien visitors perhaps? There are no real indications, just suggestions, this has happened.

I stick with the idea that life arose on earth itself, unless proven otherwise.


Abiogenesis is a little weak at present.
Basic evolution states that life came from life.

Please do not confuse these concepts, because it is hard enough to talk to Creationists about this stuff without "lumping in" abiogenesis with evolution.


At least in concept we know from nature that things develop and progress, and that new qualities arise in matter.
The development from just hydrogen to all elements and all kinds of anorganic molecules and also complex organic molecules, through star and planetary evolution and geology, in the conceptual way and based on known forms of material interaction, is I think clear.
The exact link to that process into living matter, might be still unclear, since we do not have yet found that particular mechanism, but at least in a conceptual way we know these all denote gradual changes that occured in matter itself.
But in concept it is also clear that the transition that took place in which non-living matter developed into living matter, can not have been a big leap at once as some spontaneous erruption in which some organic molecules all at once assembled in a living form, but consisted of billions of intermediate steps and changes, that gradually lead to life. We can not even state exactly as where the border is between non-life and life, which is also the case in the situation that life turns back into non-life, since also the process of death denotes gradual changes.


Evolution is a theory of the data of the incomplete record of how things may have evolved.
Incomplete, and misinterpreted at times, fossil record.

It is not a for-gone conclusion. It is a theory. A well supported hypothesis, but THAT is a theory.


Whatever the case is, it is by far the best theory we have, which fits the observed data best.

Oh, yes, and don't come up with theories that explain the same thing and which are true, since the theory that matter itself caused and formed life from nonlife is, although it is true, not a scientific theory in itself. We realy need to state more then just that.


Your parents sat down one day and said, "let's."
Does that devalue your life?

Or, your parents got together in the back seat of a car and the condom broke.
Does that devalue your life?

People say strange things all the time, but the one that really annoys me is that the "start" of something give or does not give it reason and purpose for being. That is why I am the one that was the only person so far to put "I DON'T CARE" in the poll. Why? Because HOW I CAME ABOUT DOES NOT AFFECT MY LIFE. My faith in God, and in who God is, is not affected in the least by if He set all in motion, or merely "allowed it" (Let the Earth...)

If/When we did not know the real development processes, was life utterly and totaly nonsensical then? No, it gave us purpose to seek the development processes...


Lab Rat, if you want to say your existence is somehow unwanted because might be a Lab Rat, then so be it.

Personally, IF this life is a TEST of my Heavenly Father, then bring on the tests, it is better than the alternative of non-life (IMO).


I agree of course that life is valuable on itself.

I only used this argument, because theists often claimed the opposite: life has no value without creator. I just showed that in my opinion my value of life and how I conceive of it, is based on the fact that it's a long lasting development process, and a struggle for life.

Life has value in itself of course, and what we discovered as the history of our becoming, only emphasis that, since it has been a long development process, and was a struggle for life.



We see matter begin to collapse around a "supposed" black hole, and mass comes about it, the black hole force/gravitational pull and all the matter that was around it vanishes....into???

Could be the creation of another "verse" within the "uni-?"

That would be one way to proof that a "creation" forms another "verse" from what was already there...


As I understand it, the material reality is infinite and without begin and end. That is the very concept to begin with to start finding material causes and consequences.

So the fact that the observable universe which we observe to exists must be accounted for by something that formed, shaped and caused it. Which just denotes that the universe as a whole did not start with this expanding spacetime bubble, but came out of a pre-existing material process, in whatever form that might have existed.

But even if that is the case, and one might label these causes under another term, we still conceive of it as any other material development process.


But I really think the above paragraph from you doesn't ask an answerable question, even to matter. I mean, "name just ONE fact that could proof 'matter' as something that could account for the existence of any thing and would exclude any other reasonable explenation, and we could consider it." I think that would be a reasonable statement inthat the phiolosophical definition of matter is not reachable....at least YOUR definition isn't. We can see that atomic structures are accountable for our present state of existence....but that is not all that matter is...

I guess I'm asking you to rephrase your question so that I can grasp it in more depth.


It is about the concept of "creation" as an opposite to development. Creation is a word we use for man made inventions. Creationists use this sometimes to make us believe, that since watches don't assemble themselves over time, and needs a "creator", so does everything, also living matter. This is then used as an example to indicate there must be a creator.

The problem with that is of course that a watch or a car or a computer were neither "created" at one specific time, but always denote a development process. A car started with using round stones (probably) and then invention of a man made wheel (of wood), that turned into charots (man/horse powered), until much time later an engine was developed, and it turned into a car.
So in fact even man's creations, are just small steps, that in time form a development process. We don't conceive of it that, without there being previous stages of development, all at once and out of nothing, we invent a concept of a new thing. Every man made product, is based on something that already existed. Either by combining existing ideas, or by improving it, but never without there was something before. In that sense, creation does not exist.

So, to rephrase this, I would state that every change and thing we see, can only be traced down as a particular stage of a development process, which itself does not begin or end.
We may call our conscios reflections and acts in the material world, which for instance create some new artifact of man's intellect as a creation, but apart from such things (which even so and in the end, just are part of a development process), we can not conceive of any creation that took place or takes place in the world.


I think your statement above was close to it, or in the very least you went over my technical level. When you say "proof" then you may mean a "test for a Greater Being" which is a false statement because a Greater Being is the tester of the lesser being and not the other way around. In other words, to believe in God is to believe you are the rat in the maze and not the tester of the tester. This brings about the ending of the discussion in the word FAITH and that is that....and we can get back to studying the SEEABLE and KNOWABLE and forget about all these other arguments of ignorance.

It's not that I deny a greater "being" (as a material being), since I conceive of a material reality that itself denotes something infinite and unending, without a begin.
It's just that I do not conceive of this material reality itself of having consciousness itself. We exists and came out of this material process as consciouss beings, and that may have occured elsewhere, into even more developed forms.
My reasoning is just the fact that we are consciouss, because we can be consciousness of something that is realy apart and outside and indepenend of our minds, and can be self consciouss because we can distinguish between self and something that is apart, independend and outside of our selves, and we can exist in a subjective forms, because there already exists an objective material reality.
So, in other words, to attribute consciousness, personality, will, intend and purpose to the infinite material process itself, is extanding the term consciousness outside of it's defined context.
We have to approach the material reality with other terms then these human terms, we have to understand matter and the development that occurs withint matter on it's own terms.

[attention]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Yes, it is. Yes, you do.

It is realy problematic to argue with humans that, although they are full grown in bodily proportions, and look human, still act as if they didn't get any consciousness. That part you don't get at birth, didn't they tell you that? You realy have to work to get some knowledge in there.

Let us abort this discussion then.

[bibliophile1954]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
Why don't you guys first define what a human is then see if a zygote, etc fits the criteria.

A zygote and up to a certain stage isn't human morphologically; at least it isn't distinguishable from other organisms but a zygote is a human genetically- just a very very tiny one.

Stratnerd: You just said the magic word there-genetically! It is the genetic tie-in that makes an embryo, or even a zygote human, & that point CAN NOT BE ARGUED! :ha:

In His Name!
bib:thumb:

[attention]

bibliohile something:

If you did pay attention to the discussion, you would have noticed that that part (the genetic determination) was not even questioned, since I already stated that.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
Yes, the fundamentalists are always ready to save the children, however, when it comes to supporting those people they want to live, they seem to support the politicians who cut their programs the most often.

I am 100% for responsible programs to help those who need it. So is the political party I support.

However, neither I nor the political party I suppport are for life time memberships to programs filled with able body persons.

So, if they live that's all that really matters?
I don't recall indicating this.
I believe you are promoting a false sterotype.

It doesn' t matter if they live with 9 other brothers and sisters with a mother that doesn't have a job and who doesn't want them?
I don't recall indicating this.
I believe you are promoting a false sterotype.

It doesn't matter if they can't afford to go to college and end up on unemployment?
I don't recall indicating this.
I believe you are promoting a false sterotype.

When these unborn babies grow up and some of them become homeless, jobless, in jail, do you intend to support them?
Well, if they go to jail I won't have a choice will I.

A portion of my tax money automaticly goes in that direction.

Do you intend to rehabilitate them? What is your plan?

Do you? You are so obviously musch more concerned with them than I am. I only care about them until they are born. Once they are born who gives a flip.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by bibliophile1954
Stratnerd: You just said the magic word there-genetically! It is the genetic tie-in that makes an embryo, or even a zygote human,


One more time for the slow ones among us.
Human-ness is not ONLY genetically based.
To be human is ALOT more than just the DNA makeup of an organism.


...& that point CAN NOT BE ARGUED! :ha:


Anything can be argued, especially against false assumptions and the ignorance you are trying to pass off as knowledge.


In His Name!
bib:thumb:

Nothing about "his Name" that you stated above.
It in actuality has nothing to do at all with "his name" but your World view and how you want to naziesque up the USA and give the ownership of each person's body to the State.

[zenya]

Originally posted by attention
You might not belief this, but evolution is true DESPITE that you don't understand it, and therefore refuse to take that as a fact.

Your claim about validating life based on an inexisting entity is absurd, same absurd as the entity itself you believe in.
Evolution is the factual record of how things evolved, and where we came from, which is proved because we observe it, and we observed the fossil record for what happened in the past.
We value life, because we know it has been such a long development process, and it means something, because life itself is a struggle. If all came about at the snap of a finger, the talking of a mere word, or the mere breath of a 'higher being', then what value does it have? Nothing. Such are phantasies and fairy tailes, that explain nothing. Without the real development process itself, life would be utterly and totaly nonsensical. If we would have been the experiment of such a being, or would have been the experiment of an alien species, that would make life itself ridiculous and not worth living.

Name just ONE fact that could proof 'creation' as something that could account for the existence of any thing and would exclude any other reasonable explenation, and we could consider it.
But since you can't, you are talking TOTAL NONSENSE here.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.... You think that I haven't heard all of this before? Same old argument over and over. You all must read the same book. I know that MY GOD exists. I know that He created me and YOU. I know that HE DOES NOT stand for the unborn being torn to shreds in the womb which was my point in the first place. Enough said.

Zenya

You want proof of creation, look around you outside. Do you really think that all this came by mere coincidence? By pure accident? Give me a break.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by zenya
BLAH BLAH BLAH....


Unfounded assertion. (You offer no refute to his claims, therefore your ignorant attempt to cancel out what he has said makes you the ignorant moron.)


You think that I haven't heard all of this before?


Truth does have a repetitive quality. I heard this the other day, "the Omnipotent Power of Truth." I honestly think that once something is the truth, it does contain a type of power within it...


Same old argument over and over.


No, the old argument is the theistic argument of a "God of the gaps." Which is bascially being torn to shreds by science which has demonstrated that matter (all the forms of it) has been the cause of all that is at present.


You all must read the same book.


(From an Atheistic standpoint:)
Yes, we all DO read similar hypothesis and theories. To bad your dumba$$ gods can't all get together and figure out who/what He actually is. [As a theist/Diest, I find that argument exceedingly humorous in fact.]

(From my standpoint:)
Yes, and it is called knowledge and understanding back by reason and logic. And it would help you greatly to learn some of this.


I know that MY GOD exists.


You have FAITH that YOUR VERSION of YOUR GOD exists.
You have no objective proof, and please stop making such statements they are exceedingly ignorant to the reality we live within. Objective evidence cancels out faith...


I know that He created me and YOU.


What empirical and unflawed theory do you draw this upon, and also, what was the exact method used by God to form all life on a physics, mathematical, and quantum level if you would be so kind.

Also, since you realize God "created me and YOU" please tell me the exact beginning. What is quantum expanding time/space bubble, from nothingness into something, infinite in reverse, space/time bubble "always," inflation, singularity, Big Bang, or what?

If you only say, "God did it" you are NOT saying ANYTHING. It is the exact same statement as "Zeus did it."

Please understand that the seeking of the origins of man is not in actuality concerning itself with "WHO" but "HOW."

The funniest thing however, in finding out the HOW we MIGHT actually discover the WHO/WHAT.


I know that HE DOES NOT stand for the unborn being torn to shreds in the womb which was my point in the first place.


You are correct, God's method of abortion is much worse and horrendously painful to the fetus, for the fetus is expelled alive and dies normally of suffocation due to unformed lungs. Natural expulsion AKA miscarriage. "How Great Thou Art," indeed.


Enough said.

Zenya


From you, most certainly!

[attention]

Originally posted by zenya
BLAH BLAH BLAH.... You think that I haven't heard all of this before? Same old argument over and over. You all must read the same book. I know that MY GOD exists. I know that He created me and YOU. I know that HE DOES NOT stand for the unborn being torn to shreds in the womb which was my point in the first place. Enough said.


Can you show and proof us that your God has more reality then Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Allah, and all these other Gods?

I know I haven't been created, but that I have arrived here as a product of an immense long development proces. It is that long, it does not even have a begin in time.


You want proof of creation, look around you outside. Do you really think that all this came by mere coincidence? By pure accident? Give me a break.

{Looking out of the window}

I see a street with some trees and there are cars parked there, and there are some bicycles standing there too, and I can see the houses at the other side of the street.

Nothing of what I see has been created. The cars and the bicycles were definately man made, since they are tools for humans, and have no purpose for themselves. They in fact share part of the same development history, they all are means of transporation developed out of the concept of the wheel.

The trees are living organisms, which neither were created, but developed from earlier life forms.

Nothing I see counts for any creation, I'm affraid.

Creation is the thing that does not fit into reality.

Why do you still believe in phantasies, in magic and mythology?

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
You are so obviously musch more concerned with them than I am. I only care about them until they are born. Once they are born who gives a flip.

The point is that. I'm not insisting that unwanted children be born. I leave that choice up to the woman who must sustain the child. I choose no life to a bad one. I have a very strong belief in the after life. Why would I insist that poor baby come and live on this earth when he could live in Heaven instead? Is that doing him some big favor? I don't think so.

"It is hard to be born as a human being and hard to live the life of one. It is even harder to hear of the path and harder still to awake, to rise, and to follow."

Dhammapada

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by wickwoman
The point is that. I'm not insisting that unwanted children be born.

So that makes it okay to kill them?

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
The point is that. I'm not insisting that unwanted children be born.
That's very nice of you.
Do not insist that unwanted children be born, but demand that their mother have the right to murder them.
Now that is true sympathy.

I leave that choice up to the woman who must sustain the child.
Again, very nice of you.
Why should one person have the right to choose to murder another innocent person?

I choose no life to a bad one.
No, you have choosen death.
The death of an already existant life.


I have a very strong belief in the after life. Why would I insist that poor baby come and live on this earth when he could live in Heaven instead? Is that doing him some big favor? I don't think so.
So you believe it is much more kind to allow the baby to be murdered so it may enter heaven soon than it would had it been given the chance to live first.

You must reall love the unborn babies as I notice you are willing to do for them what you will not do for yourself.

Namely send them to heaven early.

If this was such a great idea, then why not kill yourself? (No, I am not suggesting you kill yourself).

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
So you believe it is much more kind to allow the baby to be murdered so it may enter heaven soon than it would had it been given the chance to live first.

You must reall love the unborn babies as I notice you are willing to do for them what you will not do for yourself.

Namely send them to heaven early.

If this was such a great idea, then why not kill yourself? (No, I am not suggesting you kill yourself).

You continually call it murder (VERY DRAMATIC), however, the legal system has decided it's not, plain and simple. I have an excellent quality of life. I do not expect to be malnourished, I live in a very comfortable home, I have a job, I am educated. See the difference. You are not willing to guarantee that every child have this, you just want to be sure they all live, no matter how crappy their life turns out.

[attention]

Originally posted by wickwoman
You continually call it murder (VERY DRAMATIC), however, the legal system has decided it's not, plain and simple. I have an excellent quality of life. I do not expect to be malnourished, I live in a very comfortable home, I have a job, I am educated. See the difference. You are not willing to guarantee that every child have this, you just want to be sure they all live, no matter how crappy their life turns out.

And some of these doctrinists (the Pope for instance) even go so far as to state that also the use of condoms should be abondened.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by wickwoman
You continually call it murder (VERY DRAMATIC), however, the legal system has decided it's not, plain and simple.

We aim to change that. We might not succeed, but that's not going to stop us from trying.

I have an excellent quality of life. I do not expect to be malnourished, I live in a very comfortable home, I have a job, I am educated.

For all the good it's done you...

See the difference.

Not really, no.

You are not willing to guarantee that every child have this, you just want to be sure they all live, no matter how crappy their life turns out.

Hey, you're not willing to guarantee it either. In fact, you'd just as soon make sure they never get a chance. You might want to climb down from your high-horse before you fall off of it.

[zenya]

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Unfounded assertion. (You offer no refute to his claims, therefore your ignorant attempt to cancel out what he has said makes you the ignorant moron.)



Truth does have a repetitive quality. I heard this the other day, "the Omnipotent Power of Truth." I honestly think that once something is the truth, it does contain a type of power within it...



No, the old argument is the theistic argument of a "God of the gaps." Which is bascially being torn to shreds by science which has demonstrated that matter (all the forms of it) has been the cause of all that is at present.



(From an Atheistic standpoint:)
Yes, we all DO read similar hypothesis and theories. To bad your dumba$$ gods can't all get together and figure out who/what He actually is. [As a theist/Diest, I find that argument exceedingly humorous in fact.]

(From my standpoint:)
Yes, and it is called knowledge and understanding back by reason and logic. And it would help you greatly to learn some of this.



You have FAITH that YOUR VERSION of YOUR GOD exists.
You have no objective proof, and please stop making such statements they are exceedingly ignorant to the reality we live within. Objective evidence cancels out faith...



What empirical and unflawed theory do you draw this upon, and also, what was the exact method used by God to form all life on a physics, mathematical, and quantum level if you would be so kind.

Also, since you realize God "created me and YOU" please tell me the exact beginning. What is quantum expanding time/space bubble, from nothingness into something, infinite in reverse, space/time bubble "always," inflation, singularity, Big Bang, or what?

If you only say, "God did it" you are NOT saying ANYTHING. It is the exact same statement as "Zeus did it."

Please understand that the seeking of the origins of man is not in actuality concerning itself with "WHO" but "HOW."

The funniest thing however, in finding out the HOW we MIGHT actually discover the WHO/WHAT.



You are correct, God's method of abortion is much worse and horrendously painful to the fetus, for the fetus is expelled alive and dies normally of suffocation due to unformed lungs. Natural expulsion AKA miscarriage. "How Great Thou Art," indeed.



From you, most certainly!

Why do you resort to name calling? Is it because I don't believe the way you do? Is it because I stand up for the unborn? Is it because I don't believe in the lie of evolution? This all adds up to MORON? Have I called you any names because you don't believe as me? No, because that is childish. A lack of communication skills on your part. I choose not to argue somthing I believe to be false. I will argue until the day I die about abortion. It is a very real issue. Evolution is false. You have the choice to believe in God or not. You are not harming anybody but your self by believing in that lie. Abortion on the other hand is harming some one, the mother and the unborn. Get it? I could care less what you believe about me. But, don't call me names anymore. I do not deserve it.

Zenya

[prodigalson]

Who's to say that one of the aborted wouldn't of found a cure for Cancer, or maybe a cure for Aids or something to that effect.

I remember reading a poll that gave you 3 choices of what child to abort and the one everyone picked would of been Behtoven(sp?) cause he was born into the most dire circumstance, the other two were Hitler and I believe Stalin.

[attention]

Originally posted by zenya
Evolution is false. You have the choice to believe in God or not. You are not harming anybody but your self by believing in that lie. Abortion on the other hand is harming some one, the mother and the unborn. Get it? I could care less what you believe about me. But, don't call me names anymore. I do not deserve it.


Your belief is false, evolution is a fact, and it is not likely to change, the fact will only be firmer. That is called scientific progress.
You are taking the point of view that you stand up for the right of living for a human being. But you stand up for the wrong side, as there is not yet a human being that can be protected or harmed, since the embryo is not yet a human being.
The only thing that can possibly be harmed is your ego that is based on a false idea.
But what has the right of the mother within the context of legislation to decide for itself has to do with your ego?
Should the legislation protect ego's that could be hurt because they belief in something that is false?

This is turning the world upside down. The human rights should be applied for those that already have a human life, and not for living things that have not yet will, consciousness or human life of their own.

[Stratnerd]

Who's to say that one of the aborted wouldn't of found a cure for Cancer, or maybe a cure for Aids or something to that effect.

Women can have > 10 children but in most places they don't. Should they all feel guilty for not giving birth to potential saviours of the human race? But as you've already pointed out, they may give birth to terrible terrible people. We should deal with what we have not the could be's.

Zenya,

Evolution isn't a lie; there's no conspiracy and belief in evolution doesn't preclude a belief in God - only in a strict literal reading of Genesis.

[attention]

Originally posted by prodigalson
Who's to say that one of the aborted wouldn't of found a cure for Cancer, or maybe a cure for Aids or something to that effect.


This is a non-issue since the same applies to all the egg-cells and sperm-cells that neither make it into a human being.

There are millions of kids who are ALREADY alive, and who deserve the change to become a brilliant doctor, scientist, or other outstanding professional.

But fact is, there are millions of children that are already born, and don't have such chances, due to lack of opportunities, poverty and other depriving circumstances.

Why don't these children deserve a chance to have the education they need and the opportunities to become what they are talented for?

Why don't you worry about the REAL issues, instead of the NON ISSUES?


I remember reading a poll that gave you 3 choices of what child to abort and the one everyone picked would of been Behtoven(sp?) cause he was born into the most dire circumstance, the other two were Hitler and I believe Stalin.

What is to become of a child is not just genetics, but are in most cases circumstances. Even Einstein was not so brilliant at school, but nevertheless made it to become one of the most brilliant and famous physicist.

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by wickwoman
You continually call it murder (VERY DRAMATIC), however, the legal system has decided it's not, plain and simple.
Why wouldn't I call "it" ("it" being abortion) murder?

I don't call it murder very dramatically, I call it murder very factually.

It doesn't matter if it is legal, it is still wrong.

When one person takes the life of another innocent person, then that person (and those who assit that person in the taking of an innocent life) becomes a murderer.

Aborting you child makes you a murderer.

Aborting your child does not allow you to avoid becoming a mother or a father, it simply makes you the mother or father of a dead child.



I have an excellent quality of life. I do not expect to be malnourished, I live in a very comfortable home, I have a job, I am educated.
And?
If you were malnourished and lived in the bricks with no job and little education, would you take your life?

I mean, there is no pssible way that you could ever over come right?

btw, are you an eliteist?

See I wonder, because you contrast the unhealthy with your health, and seem to think that difference makes your life of more value.

You seem to be okay with the fact that no one murdered you in the womb, or any where else for that matter.

You contrast your living conditions with those who live in poor living conditions. Your life remains worht living, yet theirs it seems should never have been allowed a fighting chance.

You contrast your job and education with the jobless and uneducated.

Your life again, worth living.
Theirs, not even worth that first breath.

I think you might be an eliteist.
I think you might believe you are a superior being.

Obviously I have no way of knowing for sure. It just seems from my vantage point that this might be the case.

You are not willing to guarantee that every child have this, you just want to be sure they all live, no matter how crappy their life turns out.

Health is an important thing.
But good health is not needed to live a good or productive life.

A comfortable home is nice, but is not a necessity.

A job is a good thing, the wage doesn't have to break the bank though.

A education also a good thing (depending on where you get that education) but not a necessity.

I am not willing to guarantee every child have "this" because I cannot.

Are you willing to guarantee that abortion is the answer and if we just murder a few more babies that every child who is not murdered in the womb can have these things?

Also, how is it you came to the conclusion that these are the things which make life worth living?
Which give life value?

[attention]

rfburnhertz:

You are out of your mind.

A fertilized human egg-cel IS NOT a human, neither is it after a week, after 2 weeks after 3 weeks.

And you are not the moral judge here.

[frostmanj]

Originally posted by attention
rfburnhertz:

You are out of your mind.

A fertilized human egg-cel IS NOT a human, neither is it after a week, after 2 weeks after 3 weeks.

And you are not the moral judge here.

Just because you have no moral basis to your life does not mean that rfburnhertz does not. Based on the Bible (our code of morality) the unborn child is as precious to God as those already in the world.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart"

Luke 1:44 "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy."

Rfburnhertz (along with most of us on this board) believes that the morality found in the Bible is both sound and just. And, it's a damn sight better than any situational ethics that you may bring to the table.

BTW: What makes you the scientific judge of when human life begins?

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by frostmanj
Just because you have no moral basis to your life does not mean that rfburnhertz does not.


unfounded assertion.


Based on the Bible (our code of morality)


Weak...


...the unborn child is as precious to God as those already in the world.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart"


He was talking to jeremiah.


Luke 1:44 "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy."


This is an unborn child God used.
God used a mule once to speak too...and a bush with fire on it.


Rfburnhertz (along with most of us on this board) believes that the morality found in the Bible is both sound and just.


Cool, then you think to free a people the best way to go about it is to kill the firstborn of those that have the people enslaved?
Or how about God's command unto David to kill everyone, women and children and livestock.

I could go on to the complete and total ignorance of some of the laws in the KJV but I will stop at this one: A young woman in town who does not yell loud enough if raped is to be stoned. What a just God you serve.


And, it's a damn sight better than any situational ethics that you may bring to the table.


Unfounded (to the total extreme) assertion.


BTW: What makes you the scientific judge of when human life begins?

Scientific theory and technical definitions of life-forms, that is what.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by attention
A fertilized human egg-cel IS NOT a human, neither is it after a week, after 2 weeks after 3 weeks.

Sure it is.

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Sure it is.

Sorry to sound like a broken record:

UNFOUNDED ASSERTION.

[frostmanj]

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Sorry to sound like a broken record:

UNFOUNDED ASSERTION.

And what makes your assertion that human life doesn't begin at conception any more founded?

Answer this: When scientifically did your life start?

[One Eyed Jack]

Joseph is schizophrenic. He hears 'voices' and thinks he's some kind of prophet or something. He needs help. Badly.

[frostmanj]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Joseph is schizophrenic. He hears 'voices' and thinks he's some kind of prophet or something. He needs help. Badly.
Must be something. If the only thing you can say to debate is "UNFOUNDED ASSERTATION". A little 'foundation' in response would be nice.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by frostmanj
Must be something. If the only thing you can say to debate is "UNFOUNDED ASSERTATION". A little 'foundation' in response would be nice.

Well, if you're really lucky, he'll call you an "ignorant moron." He seems to like that one too.

[Flake]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Sure it is.

I wish I could be as single minded as most here who have posted, but I cannot.
Attentions *sand pile* analogy is interesting but falls down when we realise that we cannot compare a human to such a thing because a pile of sand does not exist, it is a contrivance for convenience. It could be called *some* sand. To call a human being *some* cells is inappropriate and demeaning.
The cell will not grow into an apple or a raddish, it will grow into a human, as we know it. Abortion is the cessation of the human life process that has begun, and is detestable for that alone, and goes against the libertarian tenet of as long as it doesnt affect anothers liberties.
Its an incredibly complex subject especially when we weigh the rights of the *host* mother. The only conclusion at the moment that I can conjure is that it is simply far to easy to abruptly halt a human life, we are turning a blind eye when an abortion occurs. The question is, are we entitled to do so? We expect criminals to get shot, our soldiers to kill, people to die in accidents. Death is a part of Human life, of the process of living. Gah, I dunno, its a hard one.

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Why wouldn't I call "it" ("it" being abortion) murder?

btw, are you an eliteist?

See I wonder, because you contrast the unhealthy with your health, and seem to think that difference makes your life of more value.

You seem to be okay with the fact that no one murdered you in the womb, or any where else for that matter.

You contrast your living conditions with those who live in poor living conditions. Your life remains worht living, yet theirs it seems should never have been allowed a fighting chance.

You contrast your job and education with the jobless and uneducated.

Your life again, worth living.
Theirs, not even worth that first breath.

I think you might be an eliteist.
I think you might believe you are a superior being.

Obviously I have no way of knowing for sure. It just seems from my vantage point that this might be the case.

A comfortable home is nice, but is not a necessity.

A job is a good thing, the wage doesn't have to break the bank though.

A education also a good thing (depending on where you get that education) but not a necessity.

I am not willing to guarantee every child have "this" because I cannot.

Are you willing to guarantee that abortion is the answer and if we just murder a few more babies that every child who is not murdered in the womb can have these things?

Also, how is it you came to the conclusion that these are the things which make life worth living?
Which give life value?

The point is that, if I were pregnant, I would not abort my child under any circumstances that I can think of off hand, however, I AM NOT PREGNANT. I do not have the right to tell a pregnant woman how she should feel about her future child, the fetus she must carry for 9 months in her uterus, the person who she must either abandon to some person she's never met (wondering for the rest of her life is it was a happy child or not) or care for herself for the next 21 years.

As for being an elitest. You have been very dramatic again. Knowing the purpose of why I ever mentioned my personal situation. You asked me why I did not commit suicide. That was the answer. I am a happy person. That doesn't mean that everyone else in the world is. If I were unhappy I would certainly consider suicide if I believed I wasn't going to get a chance to be happy at some point in the future. For you to dictate to everyone that they must live, no matter what the circumstances of their life is very myopic of you.

You call yourself a Christian, yet you seem to believe that this earthly existence if the most prized possession of all. You speak of the Heavenly afterlife, yet you would insist that an unwanted child live here in a life possibly full to poverty, hunger and unhappiness. Do you truly believe in Heaven or is that just something that you throw out when its useful to you. Do you truly believe that Heaven is better than here? If so, why would you insist that everyone be here instead of there?

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Joseph is schizophrenic.


First, what degree in psychology do you hold, what sessions have we held, what is the definition of this mental disorder and the variables which come into play with it, is "schizophrena" ONLY hearing a voice, and are you ignorant?

The last answer is yes to help you out.

First, you are not qualified nor do you know anything about me, further, you have misrepresented me, and are a liar.


He hears 'voices'


I heard one, single, still small voice which is not audible but internal.

This alone is NOT classified by ANY qualified professional as schizophrenia. The mental "disorder" or "qualification" for having schizophrenia has many more variables which come into play and I do not have those variables. In other words, you cannot classify me as this term and be correct on a medical or psychological level. You could use this term in an attempt to disqualify what I say, but you would not only fail at that, remain the ignorant backwood person you are, but so be it.

You are attempting to discredit me through mis-labeling and lying about me, which I find as defamatory and makes you in to one of the biggest pieces of human waste I have ever met.


...and thinks he's some kind of prophet or something.


Time shall tell whom/what I am and why these things have happened to me. I do not care what/whom/of what/for whom these things are for, especially when it allows ignorant persons such as yourself to ignorantly label a truthful and honest man, and simply attempt to discredit him because he doesn't fit into your current World View. Sorry if I hurt you little mind and make you think.

IF I am a "schizophrenic" as you so calmly attempt to put it, and attempt once again to discredit me because of this false label with zero support for your argument nor offer evidence for your unfounded assertions (which is a habit of your ignorance throughout these threads), then so was every single prophet of God, for ALL I have is one single still small inner voice which leads me into further understandings.

This has also been labeled under the technical definitions within psychology as vastly different from the disorder of schizophrenia. The disorder I "have" is more than likely a form of "assyncronous communication over the corpus collossum" and "inner voice." I am a doubter my whole life in God, and when I "heard from a voice claiming to be YHVH" I immediately believed I HAD gone schizophrenic. It turns out I do not qualify and I am quite "normal" when taken into the reality of the number of people who experience this (including pastors, monks, and the like which claim this inner voice is "God").

There have been hundreds upon thousands (if not millions) of exceedingly important and World altering men who have had this same inner guide, from Socrates, Elijah, Abraham, Christ, Buddha, and the like. This is not "NORMAL," but neither were these men that fall into this category. I do not claim to be on their level in any way, I am simply a man who speaks his mind. Nothing more. And even if I AM what you attempt to label me, if I offer insite beyond your total ignorance I have contributed in the state I am in above what you'd like people to believe is your "normal" mental abilities. Which means that even in my state (however you wish to label it), I out-thought you in ever thread so far.

What does that say about you, if you make the false accusation that "[I] need help," and I have outthought you in ever discussion we have had so far through simply logical progression reasoning?


He needs help. Badly.


You need help, you are a liar and defamitory unfoundedly attack me, repeatedly attacking me on a point which was already settled in another thread inwhich I ASK you to offer your definition of this mental disorder that you continue to place as a label upon me.

You can't. Because if you say that "hearing a still small voice" is "all that schizophrenia is" then you immediately just call every single prophet that has lived which claimed the "still small voice" exists to fit under this mental label and you would definitely not like to do that, I assure you.

And an ignorant ignorant man you are too.

They tried this EXACT SAME THING with Christ himself:


Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.


Thanks, I had fun, your ignorant label of a just and truthful man notwithstanding...NEXT....

[wickwoman]

Dear JosephofMessiah:

I believe you heard that voice. I've heard it myself. The reason that One Eyed Jack doesn't understand what you are trying to say was explained by Jesus: "you are casting pearls before swine."

[zenya]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Joseph is schizophrenic. He hears 'voices' and thinks he's some kind of prophet or something. He needs help. Badly.

:kookoo:

[JosephofMessiah]

Originally posted by frostmanj
Must be something. If the only thing you can say to debate is "UNFOUNDED ASSERTATION". A little 'foundation' in response would be nice.

I have given those already.

I then go out and seek to see if another person GIVES information which is BACKED and is not UNFOUNDED which could disprove what I have offered.

I have offered a very simplistic and yet World altering understanding of the abortion argument. I have yet to see a response to it backed with any evidence in the social aspects of their claims, and I have yet to see anyone wanting abortion to be outlawed who can figure out a method to DO this, and not give the rights of a human's body over to the State on a precident-setting method, due to the way our courts operate.

Until that time, everything that the ignorant One Eyed has said, was and still remains an unfounded assertion.